Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Tynemouth Water Charges) Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of Selection to refer the Bill, if they think fit, to the Local Legislation Committee.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN POLITICAL PRISONERS.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the number of German political prisoners undergoing sentence at the instance of the Allied Powers in German occupied territories; and whether, in view of the cessation of organised passive resistance, any general measure of amnesty will be considered?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Ponsonby): No prisoners are undergoing sentence for political offences in German occupied territories at the instance of the British Authorities. As regards political prisoners undergoing sentence at the instance of other Allied Powers, His Majesty's Government are not in a position to give either information or any undertaking relative to the grant of an amnesty.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries and find out how many prisoners are imprisoned for political offences, and whether some settlement cannot be arrived at in the case of those who are of good will?

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in individual cases the Allied Authorities have already granted an amnesty, and that it is not unreasonable to hope that a general amnesty will be granted?

Mr. PONSONBY: I will inform my right hon Friend of the hon. Member's suggestion.

TURKEY.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the proposal of the Turkish Government to abolish the Caliphate; and whether there is anything in the Treaty of Lausanne which implies recognition of the existing Turkish Caliphate by Powers other than Turkey?

Mr. PONSONBY: Accounts in the Press confirm the information already in the possession of His Majesty's Government, but there has been no time for a detailed report to be received on the very rapid sequence of events that have culminated in the abolition of the Caliphate and the expulsion from Turkey of the Caliph in pursuance of a legislative enactment by the Turkish Assembly at Angora. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Where is the Caliph of Islam going to, now that he has been turned out of Turkey?

Mr. PONSONBY: We have had no information on the subject.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information with regard to a political Treaty between Germany and Turkey; and whether he will see that Article 56 of the Treaty of Lausanne is strictly adhered to?

Mr. PONSONBY: According to a report from His Majesty's representative at Constantinople negotiations are proceeding between the Turkish and German Governments for the conclusion of a
treaty which is to serve as a basis for the re-establishment of normal relations between the two Powers. There is no reason to believe that this treaty will conflict with the provisions of any of the Articles of the Treaty of Lausanne.

DELIVERIES IN KIND.

Mr. HANNON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what arrangements have been made by the German Government with German industrialists for the reimbursement of the cost of deliveries in kind made to the French and Belgian Governments?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): As the answer is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I understand that the German Government have given an undertaking of eventual reimbursement to the mining industry and to the chemical industry in occupied territory, but have refused to give any such undertaking to the other industries.

As regard the mines, the undertaking given was to reimburse to the mineowners ultimately after the restoration of the German Government finances, the value of coal deliveries to France, Belgium and Italy and the amount of coal tax paid under the agreement made by the mines in November last with the Franco-Belgian authorities, provided that such deliveries and payments are credited by the Reparation Commission to Germany on reparation account. In the meantime, the mines are authorised to set off the amounts thus due to them against Corporation Tax, Capital Tax and Turn-Over Tax due to the German Government.

The promise given to the chemical industry was that the value of deliveries effected under the agreement made with the Rhineland Commission (i.e., the French and Belgian delegates) would be reimbursed later by order of the German Ministry of Finance, in so far as actually credited to Germany on reparation account.

HUNGARY.

Mr. P. HARRIS: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to
the complaints of the Hungarian Government as to the failure of the Allies to enforce respect for the minority clauses in the Peace Treaty, and the practical expropriation of Hungarian property in the succession States; and whether anything can be done in the matter?

Mr. PONSONBY: As a result of a petition lodged by the Hungarian Government with the League of Nations, not under the minority clauses of the Peace Treaties, but under Article 11 of the Covenant, representatives of the Hungarian and Roumanian Governments met together at Brussels on the 24th May last to consider the question of the expropriations to which presumably the hon. Member now refers. The reporter appointed by the Council of the League to preside at this meeting drew up a draft resolution providing for the settlement of the question, which received the formal approval of both the Hungarian and Roumanian representatives at the Brussels meeting, and was adopted by the Council of the League at a meeting on the 5th July, 1923.

EGYPTIAN TRIBUTE LOANS.

Mr. FRANKLIN: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to Article 112 of the Treaty of Sevres in reference to the loans of the Imperial Ottoman Government Four per cent. 1891 (Egyptian Tribute), and the Imperial Ottoman Government Three and a half per cent. Conversion 1894 (Egyptian Tribute), and the variation of that clause in the Treaty of Lausanne, Article 18, and also to the letter of the Foreign Office, under date 22nd March, 1922, written at the time when the British Protectorate over Egypt terminated, in which letter it was expressly stated that this change in the status of Egypt will not affect the security of bondholders of this loan, which will be protected under the terms of the Treaty with Turkey; and whether he can state what protection will be given to the bondholders of these loans under the terms of the Treaty with Turkey?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Treaty of Lausanne does not alter the existing arrangements whereby the service of the loans is met.
In consequence of the continuance of these arrangements, the service of these loans continues to be paid in full whereas no payment is at present being made in respect of the service of any other pre-War Ottoman public debt.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN COTTON (PRICES).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the serious effect upon the Lancashire cotton trade of his proposal to the Sudan Government to consider fixing maximum prices for Sudan cotton, and to restrict a sale at such prices to the British market; is he aware that no request for such action has at any time been made by the Lancashire cotton trade organisations, and before proceeding further with the proposal will he consult the various cotton trade organisations; and is he aware that the cotton trade requires a free market for the grower and a world price for the buyer, and will view with alarm the proposals made to the Sudan Government?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the considerations mentioned by the hon. Member, and I can assure him that they will be duly weighed when we receive the reply to the inquiries which have been addressed to the Sudan Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (LIQUOR AGREEMENT).

Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the agreement with the Government of the United States of America with regard to the carrying of liquor under seal into the harbours of the United States applies to ordinary merchant ships as well as to passenger ships?

Mr. PONSONBY: The answer is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERBIA (ARREST OF BRITISH SUBJECT).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether his attention has been called to the treatment accorded to a Mr. H. V. Milne, an Englishman residing in Leamington, who, on 14th October, 1923, whilst on a walking tour, was arrested by the Serbian authorities at Struga, on the Albano-Serb frontier, and, though his passport was properly vise and in order, was detained in prison and under close surveillance for 48 hours, after which period he was given permission by the prefect to leave the country; and whether he will cause the fullest inquiries to be made into this case and obtain assurances from the Serbian Government that Englishmen travelling in Serbia, whether on business or pleasure, shall not again be subjected to similar indignities?

Mr. PONSONBY: As soon as this case was brought to the knowledge of His Majesty's late Government, His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade was instructed to lodge a protest with the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government against the treatment accorded to Mr. Milne. No reply having been received, when the matter was brought before me, His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade was instructed to call the attention of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government again to the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (AMBASSADOR).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when ambassadors will be appointed at Moscow and London; whether credit will be granted to the Soviet Republic; if so, of what amount; and whether he will submit to the House for its approval the terms upon which it may be proposed to grant recognition to Russia as the result of the forthcoming conference before British credit is pledged in any way?

Mr. PONSONBY: I am not yet in a position to state when the appointments, to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, will be made. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is that the Russian Government's proposals have not been made, far less considered. With regard to the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that de jure recognition was accorded to the Soviet Union Government in the note of 1st February last.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY).

Mr. E. HARVEY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken with regard to the remission of the Boxer indemnity since the announcement of British policy made in 1922; and whether, with a view to the promotion of friendlier relationship with China, he can expedite the arrangements for the utilisation of the indemnity payments?

Mr. PONSONBY: Legislation is necessary in order to give effect to the policy of His Majesty's Government. A Bill has been drafted, and will shortly be introduced.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIBET (TASHI LAMA).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a report from the British Agent at Gyantse with regard to the reported flight of the Tashi Lama from Shigatse; whether he has any information with regard to the reasons for his flight; and whether he has gone to India or to China?

Mr. PONSONBY: The Tashi Lama fled from Shigatse towards the end of last December. The reason for his flight appears to be a disagreement with the Tibetan Government. His present whereabouts are unknown; he has not entered India, and no intelligence has been received of his having reached China.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (NAVAL ESTIMATES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Japanese Naval Estimates have been reduced since the earthquake; if so, by how much; and what effect this is to have on the Japanese warship building programme?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): Yes, Sir, by approximately £5,360,000 at the par rate of exchange. The completion of the building programme will, as a result, be retarded by one year, i.e., it is to be completed by 31st March, 1929, instead of by 31st March, 1928. Supplementary Naval Estimates will, however, be demanded for approximately £10,000,000,
spread over several years, for reconstruction of naval establishments damaged by the earthquake and fire.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will this affect the British building programme in any way?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir PAGE CROFT: May we take it that there will be no reduction in this country greater than has been indicated already?

Mr. AMMON: Our programme is made up without, regard to anybody else.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

NEW CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the names of the 10 cruisers over 15 years old now in commission; and what duties are they employed upon?

Mr. AMMON: As the reply is somewhat lon, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

It has been proved by experience that in the case of light cruisers one year's war service should count as two years' peace service. On this basis the following 10 cruisers now in commission are over 15 years old.

Royal Navy.

Weymouth.—Trooping service; taking relief crews to China.
Dartmouth.—In reserve at Devonport.
Yarmouth.—Seagoing tender to the Signal School at Portsmouth.
Chatham.—New Zealand station; shortly to be relieved by "Dunedin."
Dublin.—Cape station.
Southampton.—Flagship, East Indies stations; shortly to be relieved.
Birmingham.—Flagship, Cape station.
Lowestoft.—In Chatham Dockyard; paid off.

Royal Australian Navy.

Melbourne.—Australian station.
Sydney.—Australian station.

Mr. HANNON: 29 and 30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether he can give the length of life of a light cruiser for combatant purposes; how many of the 48 cruisers of the British Empire, including Dominions, will become obsolete in each of the next 15 years; and what programme of replacement will be necessary to avoid an actual drop in our cruiser strength in any one of those years;
(2) whether he can state the length of life of a destroyer; how many of the 201 destroyers now on the effective list will become obsolete in each of the next 15 years; and what programme of replacement does he consider necessary to prevent a reduction in our destroyer strength in any one of those years?

Mr. AMMON: I will answer these questions together. For combatant purposes the life of a light cruiser is 15 years and for a destroyer 12 years. Experience has shown that in estimating the life of a light cruiser or destroyer one year's war service must be taken as equal to two years' peace service. As this House has already been informed, the Government have appointed a Cabinet Committee to consider the requirements of the Navy as regards the replacement of units of the Fleet. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the numbers of cruisers and destroyers now on the effective list which will become over age in each of the next 15 years.

The statement promised is as follows:

The number of light cruisers which will reach 15 years of age in each of the next 15 years is as follows:


1922–23
3


1923–24
5


1924–25
2


1925–26
1


1926–27
5


1927–28
3


1928–29
1


1929–30
4


1930–31
5


1931–32
1


1932–33
2


1933–34
5


1934–35
6


1935–36
Nil.


1936–37
1


1937–38
4


193[...]–39
Nil.

The number of destroyers which will reach 12 years of age in each of the next 15 years is as follows:


1927–28
1


1928–29
3


1929–30
22


1930–31
29


1931–32
29


1932–33
36


1933–34
39


1934–35
32


1935–36
2


1936–37
1


1937–38
2


1938–39
0


1939–40
5

SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been made with regard to the proposed naval base at Singapore?

Mr. AMMON: No, Sir. The matter is at present under consideration.

Mr. BROWN: If I put down a question for this day week, will the hon. Gentleman give me an answer then in view of the feeling in the country?

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Government bear in mind, when this subject is being considered, that the Prime Minister himself described this project as the "wild and wanton escapade of Singapore?"

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Government also bear in mind that the Prime Minister has since learned better?

DIRECTOR OF NAVAL CONSTRUCTION.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any appointment has yet been made to the office of Director of Naval Construction; how long this appointment has been vacant; and what is the reason for the delay?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Hodges): No appointment has yet been made to the post of Director of Naval Construction, which has been vacant since the let January, 1924. As stated in my reply of the 27th February, an announcement on the subject will be made as soon as possible.

Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question—what is the reason for the delay in view of the shipbuilding programme of the Navy?

Mr. HODGES: The reason for the delay is the subject of consideration.

Viscount CURZON: If I put down a question for this day week, will the hon. Gentleman be able to answer it then?

Mr. HODGES: That depends on the circumsances which arise.

FLEET MANŒUVRES (AIRCRAFT DIRECTION).

Commander BELLAIRS: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a British fleet has yet been manœuvred by directions from air-craft, as has been done elsewhere?

Mr. AMMON: The answer is in the negative.

AIR FORCES.

Commander BELLAIRS: 21.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in the event of it being decided to hand over the Air Forces and their personnel associated with the Fleet to the Navy, it will be considered whether economies in personnel and material could be effected through the use of existing naval resources?

Mr. AMMON: The question is hypothetical. His Majesty's Government have no intention of re-opening a question which has already been decided after the most exhaustive inquiries by the preceding Government.

NAVAL REVIEW.

Mr. GILBERT: 22.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been come to as to the movements of the Atlantic Fleet during this year; and can he now make any statement as to providing a review of the Fleet during the summer or autumn months on the Thames, in view of the great number of Dominion and Colonial visitors in London for the British Empire Exhibition?

Mr. AMMON: The question of holding a naval review is now under consideration with a view to it taking place towards the end of July at Spithead, which is a more suitable and convenient anchorage
than the Thames. Arrangements will also be made, if possible, to bring some of the smaller vessels up the Thames.

Mr. STEPHEN: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea of how much this review will cost?

"EMDEN" AND "KARLSRUHE" (DESTRUCTION).

Viscount CURZON: 23.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many ships were engaged in the operation of searching for and destroying the "Emden" and "Karlsruhe," respectively, during the late War?

Mr. AMMON: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the Noble Lord's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

During the period from the commencement of hostilities until the Emden was destroyed on 9th November, 1914, it was only possible to detail six ships, four British and two Japanese, especially to search for her. As a direct result of "Emden's" activities, however, many other ships were employed escorting the Australian, New Zealand and Indian troop transports. After the Battle of Coronel had definitely located Admiral von Spee's force, arrangements were made to collect a force of 14 cruisers to search for the "Emden." The ship was, however, met and destroyed by H.M.A.S. "Sydney" before the organisation was complete. The latter was not under special orders to search for the "Emden," but was primarily employed on convoy duty. The "Karlsruhe" operated mostly in the West Indies and South American waters, and 18 vessels in all were detached specifically to search areas from which reports of her movements were received.

RETIRED OFFICERS (WAR SERVICE).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will appoint a small Committee of the Board, or a Select Committee, to inquire into the question of the pensions of retired naval officers who served during the War?

Mr. AMMON: This matter has already been fully considered, and the Admiralty are not prepared to appoint such a Committee.

KING'S REGULATIONS (INTERPRETATION).

Sir B. FALLE: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the doubt now prevalent amongst naval officers and ratings as to the intentions of the Board of Admiralty in the revised wording of Article 218 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty instructions contained in King's Regulation 16 of June, 1922, and King's Regulation 6 of December, 1922, he will issue a plain worded statement for the information of all concerned?

Mr. AMMON: I am not aware that there is any doubt as to the meaning of the Article referred to.

Sir B. FALLE: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Regulation?

Mr. AMMON: I can tell the hon. Member that I got it out specially to read it when he put this question to me.

DISCHARGED PRISONERS.

Sir B. FALLE: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that naval ratings who are discharged to the shore at the expiration of a term of imprisonment are not provided with a civilian suit, although, generally speaking, these men have little, if any, money to receive on discharge; and whether, in view of the special pattern of a class 2 naval rig and the possibility of disgrace being brought upon His Majesty's uniform, he will consider the provision of a suit of plain clothes for discharged naval prisoners?

Mr. HODGES: Men discharged for misconduct leave the Service with their kits minus the strictly uniform articles, namely, blue Jean collar, cap ribbon and badges, which are withdrawn; and the same practice has been followed in the case of men sentenced to imprisonment before discharge. It has not been considered necessary to treat the latter men specially and supply them with a suit of civilian clothes.

SCOTTISH RESERVISTS (TRAINING).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the large number of Royal Naval Reserve men from the Western Isles and the Highlands generally who travel to the South of
England to undergo their annual training and in view of the extra expenditure involved in travelling, he will consider the advisability of stationing a training ship at Stornoway?

Mr. AMMON: The training of the Royal Naval Reserve is biennial, not annual, as stated. The nature of the training varies according to the different ratings held by the Royal Naval Reserve men, and it would be impracticable to centralise it in one ship. By sending the men to the naval ports it is possible to arrange for their training in the ships or instructional establishments appropriate to the training required at very small expense, as the same skilled instructional staff and technical training appliances provided for training the active service regular personnel are available for the Royal Naval Reserve. It is estimated that the cost of maintaining a special training ship at Stornoway would far exceed the present expenditure on travelling expenses.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT POWERS.

CRUISER POSITION, 1929.

Viscount CURZON: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give comparative figures of the cruiser position in 1929, including in the-figures no ship over 15 years of age, but including all ships built, building, or projected in Great Britain, the United States of America, Japan, France, and Italy?

Mr. AMMON: It has been proved by experience that in the case of light cruisers one year's war service should count as two years' peace service. On this basis in 1929 the British Empire will have 28 light cruisers under 15 years old built and none projected; the United States of America, 10 built and eight projected; Japan, 19 built and six projected; France, four built and six projected, and Italy, one built and three projected.

BATTLESHIP STRENGTH.

Sir F. HALL: 32.
asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the present effective battleship strength in tonnage of Great Britain, France, Italy, the United
States of America, and Japan; and, if the present naval programmes of these countries are adhered to, what will be the approximate figures by the end of 1925?

Mr. AMMON: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with the hon.

—
At present.
End of 1925.


Battleships.
Battle Cruisers.
Battleships.
Battle Cruisers.


Great Britain
18 of 457,000 tons
4 of 122,700 tons
18 of 457,750 tons
4 of 122,700 tons.


France
…
9 of 194,420 tons
Nil
9 of 194,420 tons
Nil.


Italy
…
…
7 of 133,670 tons
Nil
7 of 133,670 tons
Nil.


United States
18 of 525,850 tons
Nil
18 of 525,850 tons
Nil.


Japan
…
6 of 191,320 tons
4 of 110,000 tons
6 of 191,320 tons.
4 of 110,000 tons.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABOUR STATISTICS (ABSTRACT).

Mr. BAKER: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will resume the issue of the Abstract of Labour Statistics?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. T. Shaw): Preparations are being made with a view to resuming the issue of the Abstract of Labour Statistics, and I hope that a revised edition will be published in the course of the present year.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (WAGE AGREEMENT TERMINATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement on the threatened stoppage in the coal industry; and what steps are being taken to prevent an industrial dispute in the coal mines?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave on Wednesday last to the hon. Members for Broxtowe and Moseley.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we assume that the Government are taking action in the matter before the dispute develops?

Mr. SHINWELL: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the Government is closely watching events.

Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

The strength in battleships and battle cruisers is governed by the terms of the Washington Treaty, Chapter 2, Part I. The figures asked for are as follows:

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the Government doing anything?

Mr. G. SPENCER: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that there is room for independent investigation of all the relevant facts, without waiting for a stoppage?

Mr. BATEY: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it wise to wait and let the miners try to manage this business?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am entirely in agreement with the last supplementary question, and I think that it is an effective reply to the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. G. Spencer). It would be desirable, in view of the joint meeting which is to be held to-morrow, not to make any announcement on the subject now.

Mr. SPENCER: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is the greatest divergence of opinion with regard to the facts of the case, and that inquiry will be required to arrive at the facts, so that the general public can form an accurate opinion?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BRITISH LEGION PROPOSALS.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the scheme for dealing with unemployment put forward by the British Legion; and whether he will consider
accepting the recommendations of the British Legion and their inclusion in the Government scheme for dealing with unemployment?

Mr. SHAW: I have met representatives of the National Executive Council of the British Legion and discussed their proposals for dealing with unemployment. I explained the lines upon which the Government are dealing with this problem, and assured them that every proposal which appeared to have a practicable chance of improving the position was being considered.

DOCK WORKERS, EASTHAM.

Mr. BARNES: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make arrangements for dock workers in East Ham, who have to sign on at the Employment Exchange at the docks twice a day, to give their second declaration at the Exchange nearest to where they live and thus enable them to avoid unnecessary journeys to the docks when there is no employment?

Mr. SHAW: I am having special inquiry made regarding this matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

BENEFIT (TRADE DISPUTES).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the Committee to inquire into the methods, whereby the disqualification of unemployment insurance benefit to the innocent victims of a trade dispute might be removed was appointed as long ago as June, 1922, he will now state how much longer it is proposed to wait for its Report before the Government takes action itself to relieve this disability?

Mr. SHAW: I have just received a Report from this Committee to the effect that they are unable to reach agreement on the question referred to them. While I regret this conclusion, I should like to say that I appreciate the difficulty of the problem with which the Committee had to deal and am satisfied that they made earnest, though unsuccessful, efforts to reach an agreed solution. It will now be my duty to consider whether any amendment of the existing law on this point should be proposed in the Unemployment Insurance Bill which I hope shortly to introduce. I have the matter at the present moment under examination.

SHIPYARDS (SKILLED MEN).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his statement that the Government faces the unemployment problem with the idea of putting the men back into their own work, he proposes to carry out this principle in all shipbuilding centres to which any part of the so-called cruiser programme may not be allotted; and, if so, whether he can state how the Government proposes to provide work suitable to such unemployed skilled men?

The PRIME MINISTER: The aim of the Government is to stimulate in every practicable way the revival of trade, which will create a demand for new tonnage. That was the statement I made.

BOYS AND GIRLS.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 59.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state, as on the last convenient date, the number of girls and boys between the ages of 14 and 16 and the number of persons between 16 and 18 who are unemployed?

Mr. SHAW: On 25th February there were 35,500 boys and 34,700 girls, between the ages of 14 and 18, registered at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain. I cannot give separate particulars for those between 14 and 16 and those between 16 and 18, and I would add that as those between 14 and 16 are not insured, a considerable but unknown proportion of the total number unemployed are not registered.

Sir PAGE CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this state of affairs exists in any protected country in the world, or is it peculiar to this country?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the Government are doing to give any kind of instruction to this vast number of unemployed boys and girls?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

UNCOVENANTED BENEFIT (SINGLE MEN).

Mr. G. WHITE: 60.
asked the Minister of Labour if fresh Regulations have been issued under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923, governing the payment of uncovenanted benefit to single men; and, if so, what steps should be
taken by those concerned to bring themselves within the scope of these Regulations?

Mr. SHAW: Revised instructions as to the grant of uncovenanted benefit to young single men were issued on the 14th February and took effect at once. Persons affected should renew their claims at their local Employment Exchange.

Mr. WHITE: Have any steps been taken to acquaint these people with the change in the Regulations?

Mr. SHAW: There was, I think, a very full description in the Press of the country as to what had taken place. I do not know that any extra-special steps have been taken to give information in individual cases, but I do not know of any case of hardship arising through lack of information.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the effect of these instructions is to withdraw from the employment committees the right of selection?

Mr. SHAW: No. The effect of these instructions is not to withdraw from the employment committees any rights at all, except the right to say that certain people were not entitled to benefit, to which the Government hold those people were entitled. All other considerations that were remitted to the employment committees are still remitted.

Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether a copy of these instructions is available for Members?

Mr. SHAW: I will agree to send a copy of the instructions, or a copy of the decision, to Members of the House who desire it.

ALIENS.

Sir F. HALL: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour how many aliens received unemployment pay during the year 1923?

Mr. SHAW: The statistics asked for are not available.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman get these statistics and present them to the House so that the country may know?

Mr. SHAW: I will consider the matter, but may I point out that that will cost money?

Sir F. HALL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if it does cost money the advantage would be gained to this country of finding out how many of these aliens we are keeping out of our own taxes in this country?

Mr. McENTEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether at the same time he will consider the number of aliens who are drawing dividends in this country?

Captain Viscount EDNAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee that he will find out the information desired, in view of the wide interest which will be taken in his answer?

Mr. SHAW: I will give no guarantee that I will spend large sums of money in providing information if I do not think that information will be valuable.

Sir F. HALL: Are you to be the only judge of whether the information is valuable? [Interruption.] [An HON. MEMBER: "What a democratic Government!"]

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 84.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed by the Ministry to enlist the services of the chairman, vice-chairman, and other representatives of the recent joint conference on necessitous areas in framing the statement, relative to those areas, which is to be submitted to the Government; and whether that statement is to be considered by the Government without delay?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): The statement has already been submitted to the Government, and is now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

TRAINING CENTRE (ABERDEEN).

Captain STUART: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, with regard to his decision to remove the present area training officer and to close down the sub-office of the Ministry of Labour at Burns Road, Aberdeen, he will reconsider the matter in view of the serious hardship such action will have on the
number of ex-service men in training and awaiting training throughout the whole of the North of Scotland, which is included in this area?

Mr. SHAW: The men in training or awaiting training in the North of Scotland are now few and scattered, and a separate office at Aberdeen is no longer needed. A travelling officer will be continued, as at present. The new arrangement will involve no loss of efficiency or hardship to the men and will be more economical.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Would this mean more expense to the men?

Mr. SHAW: No. So far as I know the men will be involved in neither loss of efficiency, nor will they suffer hardship or extra expense.

TRAINING (GOVERNMENT FACTORIES).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the state of unemployment, he will undertake to continue for the present the training of all disabled ex-service men in Government factories until situations or improverships can be found for them?

Mr. SHAW: Trainees whose course includes an improvership with maintenance are at present being retained in training centres until the end of March, or the end of all periods of training with maintenance, whichever date is the earlier. The arrangements to be made after 31st March will be announced shortly. What the men require after finishing their course in a training centre is not a further course but openings in employers' workshops. For this and for other reasons it is difficult to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Mr. McENTEE: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that during the past three years the Government have not only not given preference to disabled ex-service men but have refused to employ them at all unless they were employed before 1921; whether this is the policy of the present Government; and whether consideration will be given to the advisability of making maintenance grants to unemployed disabled men who are registered at the Appointments Department, Clement's Inn, until employment is found for them?

Mr. GRAHAM: I think that my hon. Friend has been misinformed. That a considerable degree of preference has been accorded to disabled men is evident from the figures given in the periodical White Paper, which show that on the 1st January last nearly 15 per cent. of the total staffs of Government Departments, including the permanent and the female staffs, consisted of disabled ex-service men. As regards the relative desirability, other things being equal, of offering reemployment to the ex-service men who are already employed temporarily in Government Departments, and whose previous work has come to an end, or engaging fresh ex-service men who may be disabled, I see no reason, as at present advised, to depart from the recommendation in paragraph 18 of the First Interim Report of the Lytton Committee. I regret to be unable to adopt the suggestion in the last part of my hon. Friend's question.

64. Mr. R. MORRISON: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now see his way to receive a joint deputation representing the trainees and instructors of the Government instructional factory, Twickenham, in connection with the petition already forwarded?

Mr. SHAW: A deputation representing the trainees at Twickenham was received by the Controller of the Training Department on the 27th February, and the points at issue were discussed. I do not think any further deputation is necessary. But if my hon. Friend has any information which he wishes to put before me, I shall be glad to receive it and, if necessary, to discuss the matter with him.

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF WORKS.

Major COLFOX: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour what Regulations he has issued, or intends to issue, to govern unemployment relief works which will effectually employ a minimum of 75 per cent. of ex-service unskilled labour?

Mr. SHAW: The conditions relating to the employment of ex-service men and otherwise are set out in detail in the form of application for a grant, and steps are taken by the auditor to satisfy himself that these conditions have been fulfilled before a grant is paid.

Major COLFOX: Will the Minister give a definite undertaking that where there are sufficient ex-service men unemployed, this principle of 75 per cent. of ex-service men will be adhered to in every case?

Mr. LANSBURY: Why did you not do it?

Mr. SHAW: I know of no case, where the circumstances are such as have been stated, where the Regulation has been departed from.

Major COLFOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, give a definite undertaking that in future that principle will be adhered to?

Mr. SHAW: There is no change of policy in the matter. Where the men are normally available, the Regulation holds good.

Major COLFOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman not answer a definite question?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGE ADVANCES (JANUARY).

Mr. LUMLEY: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour if wage advances exceeded wage reductions in the month of January; and, if so, by how much?

Mr. SHAW: The changes in rates of wages in January, so far as reported to the Ministry of Labour, resulted in an aggregate advance of about £88,000 in the weekly full-time wages of nearly 1,000,000 workpeople, and in an aggregate reduction of about £25,000 in the weekly full-time wages of nearly 500,000 workpeople, the net advance being thus about £63,000 a week. Details are given in the February issue of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

Mr. TURNER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much the increase in cost of living was, to balance the £68,000 advance in wages?

Mr. SHAW: That does not arise out of the original question.

Mr. E. BROWN: Are any rural workers included in that statement?

Mr. SHAW: The statement is given on the information supplied as a result of the question being asked. If my hon. Friend will put on the Paper a separate question, I will try to give him an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON CONVENTION (HOURS OF LABOUR).

Mr. LLOYD: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the United States, America, France, Belgium, Japan, Italy, or Poland has ratified the Washington Convention relating to hours of labour?

Mr. SHAW: As the hon. Member is aware, the United States is not a member of the International Labour Organisation. With regard to the other countries mentioned, while they have not actually ratified the Convention, legislation or administrative decrees are in force in them limiting the hours of work. Moreover, since the Armistice, 8-hour day laws or administrative regulations of varying scope have also been enacted in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Czechoslovakia, Luxemburg, Russia, Jugoslavia, Latvia, various South American States, and British Columbia.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: When were these orders put into force in France, and in what circumstances?

Mr. SHAW: I think the House will recognise that it is impossible for me to answer a supplementary question of that kind.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that progress abroad depends upon the example given in this country?

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that in Germany the hours of labour are 60 weekly as stipulated by law?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not a fact that Germany is a beaten nation and we are not?

Mr. SHAW: It is not a fact that the law in Germany provides for a 60 hours week. It is a fact that Germany is a beaten nation. It is also a fact that the Washington Convention was passed in 1919 and that we are now in 1924.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Arising out of the original reply, do the decrees and orders mentioned therein fully enforce all the points in the Convention?

Mr. SHAW: On that matter I believe there are differences of opinion, but to my personal knowledge it is a fact that in most countries represented at Washington, within 12 months after the Convention was adopted, steps were taken to introduce legislation altering the law regarding hours of labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (WAGES).

Mr. BAKER: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the low wages of assistants in scale-payment sub-offices; and whether he will consider the advisability of bringing this branch of the Post Office service under the Trade Boards Act?

Mr. SHAW: I am advised that I have no power under the Trade Boards Acts to do what is suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES (WAGES).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the low rate of wages prevailing generally in the distributive trades and the lack of organisation among the workers, he will cause Trade Boards to be set up to cover the whole of the distributive trades?

Mr. SHAW: I am examining this subject in response to representations which I have received from the National Union of Shop Assistants, Warehousemen and Clerks.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman, if he is considering the setting up of Trade Boards, remember the catering trades, where the conditions are particularly bad for women?

Mr. SHAW: Any trade in which the conditions are particularly bad for either men or women will be remembered.

Mr. BECKER: Will the hours of these workers, shop assistants and others, be regulated under the Washington Convention?

Mr. SHAW: The House will see, when the Convention is put before it—as I hope it will be—that there is doubt as to whether these workers will come within its scope or not.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY (NATIONALISATION).

Captain BOWYER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce legislation to nationalise any industry, and, if so, which?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on the 25th February in reply to a question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Turner-Samuels).

Captain BOWYER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in order to create confidence, it is desirable that industry should know the Government's intentions on such an important question concerning its own future?

The PRIME MINISTER: All the evidence to-day points to the fact that industry has great confidence in us.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, if a Royal Commission be appointed to consider the problem of national health insurance, the Government is prepared to enlarge the reference so as to include the interrelated problems of unemployment, accident, widows' and children's pensions, and superannuation?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether a scheme is now being prepared to co-ordinate the existing insurance schemes with old age and widows' pensions and accident insurance?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer given by the Lord Privy Seal on the 26th February, in reply to a question by the Noble Lord, the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck).

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these questions are very closely inter-related and that a great deal of mischief has already arisen from treating them as isolated questions?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Committee to deal with the question of insurance against unemployment, in connection with old-age pensions and widows' pensions?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question was answered a few days ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON-GROWING (EAST AFRICA).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before the British public is asked to provide further money for the development of East Africa, especially in the direction of cotton-growing, he will state the intentions of the Government with respect to international action aimed at rationing the chief raw materials of the world so that there may be no mistake as to the Imperial character of any scheme for which funds are required and solicited?

The PRIME MINISTER: The imposition of a stipulation that cotton produced in East Africa should be consumed entirely within the Empire would contravene the treaty obligations affecting the Conventional Basin of the Congo confirmed recently by the Convention of St. Germain, 10th September, 1919. On the question of the possibility of international action being taken with a view to rationing the chief raw materials of the world, I cannot add anything to the reply given on the 13th February by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in answer to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Captain Terrell).

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that the Hamburg International, with which the Labour party in this country is affiliated, has passed a resolution with regard to the rationing of cotton?

Oral Answers to Questions — MANUFACTURERS (DEPUTATION TO PRIME MINISTER).

Mr. REMER: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to publish his reply to the questions which were put to him at the recent deputation of manufacturers?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the report of the deputation which appeared in the Press yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (MALICIOUS INJURY CLAIMS).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government can help in any way the case of the inhabitants of Southern Ireland now resident in Great Britain who have suffered injury to person and property since the Treaty with the Irish Free State?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): I have been asked to reply to this question. The policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter does not differ from that of their predecessors. For information as to the steps taken to assist persons who have suffered in consequence of the disturbances in Ireland arising since he Treaty, I would refer the hon. Member to the Second Interim Report of the Irish Grants Committee (Cmd. 2032) and Parts II and III of the Memorandum on Compensation to Persons and Property (Cmd. 1844), both of which have been presented to Parliament.

Mr. MACPHERSON: As I understand the question relates to people who have suffered injury since the Treaty, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the cases of those people who suffered injury before the Treaty are also being considered?

Mr. THOMAS: I was dealing with the question put to me which concerns persons affected by disturbances since the Treaty and I must have notice of the other question.

Mr. J. J. O'NEILL: Arising out of the second reply, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some—

Mr. SPEAKER: The second reply was that notice of the question would be required.

Oral Answers to Questions — ESTIMATES COMMITTEE.

Mr. LEIF JONES: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the National Committee on Expenditure of 1918 declared that the inquiries of pre-
vious Estimates Committees had been to a great extent haphazard for the want of expert technical guidance, and that they recommended the appointment of an Examiner of Estimates who should be an officer of the House, and should stand in much the same relation to the Estimates Committee as the Comptroller and Auditor-General stands to the Public Accounts Committee, and whose duty would be to collect from his own study of the Estimates, and from information obtained from public and private sources, facts which would indicate to the Estimates Committee useful lines of inquiry; and whether he will reconsider the desirability of setting up an Estimates Committee without an Examiner of Estimates?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) on the 20th February, the Government consider that the analogy drawn between the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the proposed Examiner of Estimates is fallacious, and that they do not propose to appoint such an officer.

Mr. JONES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that a refusal to give the Committee expert assistance means that its proceedings are foredoomed to failure?

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is it not the case that the appointment of such a permanent officer, with powers analogous to those of the Auditor-General, would not only control the discretion of the Government, but also the discretion of Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: That really is the point of my reply. It is obvious that there is no analogy between the two officers.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Is it not the case that in this matter the Government are not really anxious to give the Estimates Committee powers which will be of real value to the House?

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 56.
asked the Prime Minister if, in his letter to M. Poincaré of 21st February, he is aware that the word England is used on several
occasions when it can be legitimately assumed from the context that Britain is meant; and if he will assure the House that in all diplomatic correspondence on behalf of the British people care will be taken that the inclusive term British is used, and not the sectional term English?

The PRIME MINISTER: I apologise to my hon. Friends from Scotland. I committed a grave error which I shall try not to repeat.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING (RENTS).

Mr. E. BROWN: 57.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state, in calculating the cost of living figure, at what amounts rents in 1914 are taken upon which the percentage of increase is based; and what was the latest percentage of increase applied to such amount?

Mr. SHAW: In view of the considerable variations in pre-War working-class rents in different localities and with different types of dwellings, separate percentages of increase are calculated for various pre-War rentals. These percentages are then combined in order to arrive at the average increase, which is at present 47 per cent. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for December last, which shows in detail how this figure is obtained.

Oral Answers to Questions — EIGHT-HOURS DAY.

Sir W. de FRECE: 61.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the introduction of an eight-hours day will prevent the working of overtime; and if, before introducing the Measure, he proposes to make any inquiries into its effect on the trades affected?

Mr. SHAW: The Washington Hours' Convention, upon which it is proposed to base the Hours of Employment Bill, contains provisions for overtime in certain circumstances. With regard to the latter part of the question, when the text of the Bill is issued I have no doubt that representatives of the trades affected will desire to express their views upon its terms, and I shall, of course, be ready and anxious to meet them and to consider what they have to say.

Sir F. HALL: Would it not be advisable to communicate with these trades before bringing the Bill into the House?

Mr. SHAW: From my experience, I have found that the trades do not need any communications.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the effect of the eight-hours' day on the steel trade in America?

Mr. SHAW: I am not an authority on that country.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

COTTAGES (RURAL DISTRICTS).

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 65.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cottages which have been built in purely rural districts since 1922; and whether he has any information as to the number of farm workers who occupy the said houses?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available. It could only be ascertained by a special return obtained from a large number of local authorities. The total number of houses completed in the areas of rural district councils since 1922 under Government-assisted schemes is 3,297. During the half-year to September, 1923, there were 9,427 houses of less than £26 rateable value erected by private enterprise in these areas.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: Is it the intention of the Government to take special steps to minimise the hardship of the tied cottage system in rural districts?

Mr. HOFFMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to ask for the return suggested in this question?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I will ascertain whether such information is available without any considerable difficulty or expense, and, if it is, I will present it to the House.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government intend to take special steps to minimise the hardships of the tied cottage system?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am not in a position to make a statement yet regarding the Government's housing policy.

LAND (COMPULSORY PURCHASE).

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 66.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cases
in which, owing to the price asked for land for housing schemes being in excess of what was considered reasonable, it has been necessary to apply for a compulsory order for purchase; and the number of schemes being at present held up for this reason?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Since the beginning of 1923 three compulsory orders for the acquisition of land in connection with housing schemes have been confirmed, and I have information of six other cases in which such orders have recently been made by local authorities.

BERKSHIRE.

Mr. STRANGER: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the reports of the medical officer of health of West Berkshire, and also of the sanitary inspector of the same rural district, as to the serious overcrowding in the villages of Berkshire; whether he is aware that in the village of Coldash recently 16 persons (three families) were living in one small house of only three bedrooms; that on the sanitary inspector obtaining an order to abate the overcrowding a man, his wife, and five children (two of school age) from that house had to be accommodated in the workhouse; that on admission the man was found to be suffering from tuberculosis; that there are still two families, including nine adult persons, living in that small house; that in the adjoining village of Shaw, Berkshire, a man employed in Government work, with his son, aged 15 years, share a room, whilst his wife and four children (two of school age), owing solely to lack of housing accommodation, are in the workhouse, where the man visits them and pays for their maintenance; that in the neighbouring village of Thatcham, Berkshire, in consequence of lack of accommodation, a man, Mr. Sturgiss, with his wife and four children (the two eldest only of school age), are living in a barn; and what steps he proposes to take in the immediate future to remedy the condition of overcrowding prevailing in this district?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have not received copies of the reports in question. I am, of course, aware of the regrettable housing conditions prevailing in this as in other districts, and shall do all in my power to
assist by the housing scheme of the Government.

Mr. STRANGER: 82.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the report of Dr. Sisam, medical officer of health for West Berkshire, for the year 1922, published in 1923, in which he states that the housing situation is not yet such as to justify the closure of any considerable proportion of the numerous houses which are unfit for habitation; whether he can place before the House information of the number of houses in that district found on inspection not to be in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation during 1923, and the number of those houses which are, nevertheless, still in occupation; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter?

Mr. WHEATLEY: My attention has been drawn to the report referred to. I understand that the report for the year 1923 has not yet been compiled, and the information requested by the hon. Member is, therefore, not available. As regards the last part of the question, I would suggest that the hon. Member should await the announcement which will shortly be made on the subject of the Government's general policy in regard to housing.

Mr. STRANGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question and question No. 68 were down last week? Cannot he give us a reply in the course of a week to questions of the kind?

PEABODY BUILDINGS, WESTMINSTER.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 70.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the tenants in the Peabody Buildings adjacent to the Windsor Hotel, Victoria Street, Westminster, are being turned out to allow the building to be converted into flats; and if he can postpone this conversion until the great demand for housing accommodation by the working classes in London has been relieved?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am informed that these buildings were sold by the Peabody trustees because they were regarded as out-of-date, and that they have now been vacant for some time. I understand that all the occupiers were provided with alternative accommodation in dwellings belonging to the trustees, including a new
block of dwellings which was erected in Westminster in substitution for the Victoria Street building.

Sir J. REMNANT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within the last month or two, at the outside, this block of buildings was inhabited and occupied by working-class tenants, and will he see that during this time of pressure on housing accommodation for the working classes, these blocks of buildings, which were specially built for the working classes, will be retained for them?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would deprecate any interference with the existing housing accommodation. I have given the House the information at my disposal. I cannot give a strict interpretation of the term "some time," but I take it that the houses have not been occupied quite recently.

Sir J. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has power to stop the conversion of these workmen's dwellings into more expensive flats, and, if he has not the power, will he take an early opportunity of getting such power from the House?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: What objection can there be to the Trustees of the Peabody Fund housing their tenants in healthier surroundings?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these buildings are being converted into higher-class flats, instead of giving accommodation for the working people?

An HON. MEMBER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been brought to the attention of the Conservative London County Council, and that they have refused to interfere at all?

Sir J. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question whether he has power, and, if not, will he take steps at once?

Mr. WHEATLEY: My belief, at the moment is I have no power to interfere. The appeal should be made to another authority. It probably was, and the authority may have been less sympathetic than I would have been if I had the power.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that the last Government refused to take such powers?

SUBSIDY (RURAL DISTRICTS).

Major STEEL: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the increase of the £6 subsidy payable under the Housing Act, 1923, for houses to be built in rural districts as the present subsidy of £6 is considered inadequate, especially in those districts in which local building materials are not readily available and have to be imported into the district?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. Member's suggestion will be considered in connection with the Government's housing proposals.

COST OF HOUSES.

Mr. WRAGG: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that houses have been, and are being, built by corporations in the Midlands at an exclusive price not exceeding £350, and, if so, why it is estimated that the average cost in future will be £500?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am aware that a number of local authorities in the Midlands have, during the last six months, let contracts for the erection of houses at a price of £350 or less. These contract prices, however, do not include the cost of land and road and sewer construction. The average cost of houses included in contracts let by local authorities in England and Wales during the month of January, excluding the cost of land and road and sewer construction was, for non-parlour houses £384, and for parlour houses £445. The figures of £500 to which the hon. Member refers should be looked upon as an average all-in price for different kinds of houses to be built on varying sites in different districts, and was quoted for purposes of an illustration of the kind of basis which the Government has provisionally adopted in considering the financial and other implications of their scheme.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a fact that during the last two months the cost of house building in this country has gone up considerably?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes, but I can assure the hon. Member I am not responsible for that.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Privy Seal stated a short time ago
in this House that the £500 was for structure alone, and are we now to understand that the £500 was intended to include the cost of land, and also drainage and roadmaking?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to create any difficulties between me and my colleagues, but the reply which I have given may be taken as the Government's view of the situation.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Are we to understand then, that, as usual, there is a difference of opinion among the Members of the Government?

PRICES.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: 80.
asked the Minister of Health what were the average prices of parlour and non-parlour houses, respectively, included in contracts let by local authorities during the month of January; and what were the corresponding average prices for October, November, and December, respectively?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The average prices of non-parlour and parlour houses included in contracts let and reported by local authorities during the month of January, 1924, were £384 and £445 respectively. These prices are exclusive of the cost of land, roads and sewers. The corresponding averages for the three previous months were:



Non-parlour.
Parlour.



£
£


October, 1923
358
416


November, 1923
387
435


December, 1923
412
465

Lord E. PERCY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why the cost of the parlour houses seem to have gone up disproportionately to the case of the non-parlour houses?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Glancing at the figures, the prices of all the houses seem to have gone up. I cannot give any explanation for the increase in price that is outside the knowledge of hon. Members, or with regard to the influences that operate in these things.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is public opinion not sufficient to insure the prices being corrected? What has the Minister of Health to say to that in view of the fact that a former Minister of Health insisted that this would be the case?

BUILDING TRADE.

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to report as to the progress made in the negotiations for co-operative work between employers and representatives of employés in the building trade to facilitate schemes for housing?

Lord E. PERCY: 81.
asked the Minister of Health when he expects to be able to make a statement of the results of the recent conferences with the building trade; and whether, in the event of an agreement being reached with regard to a future building programme, he will circulate the text of any such agreement before he makes his statement?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have been asked to reply. The negotiations with the building trade are being expedited as much as possible, but I am unable at the moment to state when I shall be able to make a statement on the subject. I will consider the suggestion made in the last part of the Noble Lord's question.

B-TYPE HOUSES.

Mr. RAFFETY: 85.
asked the Minister of Health if he has any information as to the number of houses of and below the B type that have been erected in England and Wales and in Scotland, since 1st January, 1919, up to 1st March, 1924, without assistance from public funds?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Information is not available on the precise point raised by the hon. Member. According to a return obtained from local authorities in England and Wales as to building by private enterprise without assistance from public funds, over 30,000 houses of not more than £26 rateable value in the provinces or £35 in the Metropolitan Police District, were completed during the year ended 30th September, 1923, and 22,281 houses of five rooms or less and 16,170 houses of six to eight rooms were in course of construction on the 30th September last. As regards information for Scotland, I would suggest that the hon. Member should address a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.

TUDOR WALTERS COMMITTEE.

Mr. RAFFETY: 86.
asked the Minister of Health if he proposes to take any steps to secure the reconsideration of
the matters dealt with by the Tudor Walters Committee and the Committee on Bye-laws, in view of the experience of the last four years?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The reports referred to deal with a variety of matters. If the hon. Member will let me know what particular subjects he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVERTISEMENT HOARDINGS.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to introduce legislation in the present Session or to take any action to prevent the erection throughout the country of further unsightly bill-posting hoardings?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): I have been asked to reply. I regret that it is not possible for the Government to introduce legislation on this subject this Session; but, as the hon. Member is probably aware, a private Member's Bill was read a Second time in another place yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHWARK BOROUGH COUNCIL (SURCHARGE REMISSION).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 69.
asked the Minister of Health in what circumstances, and by what authority, he has remitted in August, 1922, against certain members the surcharge made by the district auditor of the last Southwark Borough Council in respect of a printing contract for printing ratebooks, a lower tender being refused because the firm tendering, though paying trade union rate of wages, declined to dismiss one or two employés who had worked for them for many years but did not belong to a trade union?

Sir EDWARD ILIFFE: 71.
asked the Minister of Health his reasons for remitting a surcharge of £293 made on 13 members of the former Southwark Borough Council in respect of a printing contract?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Lincoln Division (Mr. A. T. Davies) on the 18th ultimo.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the reply to which he refers me, he merely stated that he had statutory powers to remit surcharges in cases where he considered it fair and equitable to do so, and does he consider it fair and equitable to withdraw a contract from a firm merely because one or two of its men do not belong to a trade union?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. Member's quotation of my reply is not strictly complete. May I complete it? I said that in this case I came to the conclusion that the expenditure was incurred in good faith, though under a mistaken view of the law, and that I did not consider that the circumstances demanded that the councillors who were surcharged should be required personally to make good the amount.

Sir K. WOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, at the same time as he remitted this surchage, he informed the board of guardians that he did not propose to do so on another occasion?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The usual statement was made to the board of guardians, warning them.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Does he think it fair and equitable to deprive a firm of a contract merely because one or two of its men do not belong to a trade union?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. WHEATLEY: Had I not considered if fair and equitable, I should not have made that decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — POPLAR ORDER.

Sir K. WOOD: 72.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has now given any instructions to the district auditor who is auditing the accounts of the Poor Law Guardians of Poplar; and whether he is expediting the completion of the audit of such accounts for the year 1922?

Mr. LANSBURY: Before my right hon. Friend answers that, is he aware that the accounts for the year 1922 have been audited and closed, but not signed, and
the accounts for the next half year are now under audit?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is no. With respect to the last part of the question, I understand that the auditor hopes shortly to be able to complete the audits up to September last.

Sir K. WOOD: Having regard to the statement the right hon. Gentleman made in the House the other day as to the different methods he expects the auditor to adopt, does he not think he should issue special instructions on the matter?

Major STEEL: 75.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any resolutions passed by boards of guardians protesting against his action in rescinding the Poplar Order, 1922, and in remitting the surcharges made thereunder?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have received resolutions to this effect from 15 boards of guardians.

Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what guardians?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I will give due consideration to the representations that have been put before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — VACCINATION.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 76.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to many parents by the removal of the form for declaring a conscientious objection to vaccination from the form given at registration of a birth; and will he revoke the Departmental Order of his predecessor, dated 20th July, 1923, which altered a practice that had been in operation for many years?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have received certain representations in regard to this matter, and am considering whether it is necessary to take any action with respect to the Order referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. THOMSON: How long will it be before the right hon. Gentleman can come to a decision on this question, which is purely a matter of administration resting entirely with himself?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I hope that it will only be a matter of days.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: In doing that, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the reason for which that Order was made, namely, to ensure the safety of the community by giving vaccination?

Oral Answers to Questions — LUNACY LAWS.

Major MOULTON: 77.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of holding an inquiry into the present procedure for the certification and custody of lunatics, and as to whether further safeguards are necessary to prevent sane persons being detained as lunatics?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister on Monday to the questions put to him on this subject by the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Costello), Islington (Mr. Comyns Carr), and Barnard Castle (Mr. Turner-Samuels).

Major MOULTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to wait a long time for that inquiry?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I can assure the House there will be no undue or unnecessary delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT).

Sir W. de FRECE: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the desirability of taking such steps as may be necessary to provide that when an insured person is admitted to a public institution for treatment, such institution shall be permitted to receive under the National Health Insurance Acts benefits equivalent to the treatment they afford?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 20th February to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle).

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPHTHERIA.

Major MOULTON: 83.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention
has been drawn to the remarkable results obtained by the Department of Health in New York in immunising children against diphtheria; and whether he proposes to take steps to enable parents who desire it to obtain the advantages of this treatment for their children free of charge?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. This form of preventive treatment was the subject of a special medical report by my Department in 1921, and in July, 1922, a momorandum was isued to local authorities drawing attention to the practical advantages of the method. The question of offering the treatment to parents is for the decision of local authorities or the managing bodies of institutions, but my Department has offered expert advice and assistance in the application of the treatment by those who desire to adopt it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL-POX.

Mr. LEE: 87.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will direct medical officers of health to take note of the number of rooms in each house from which cases of small-pox are reported, with the number of people living therein, with a view to ascertaining whether, and, if so, to what extent, overcrowding has any bearing upon the prevalence of the disease?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Medical Officers of Health have already been asked to attempt to measure the influence of domestic overcrowding upon the incidence of notified diseases, and this is their usual practice. I will consider whether it is practicable to do anything further in regard to small-pox.

Mr. LEE: 88.
asked the Minister of Health what form of refuse disposal exists in Albert village, Leicestershire, where cases of small-pox have been recently reported; and whether he has received any report as to the sanitary arrangements in operation in the place?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have not received any report as to the sanitary arrangements referred to, but I will make inquiries.

Mr. BLACK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that out of 48 cases of small-
pox in the Albert village, Leicester, the disease being imported from Derbyshire, only three remained last Saturday, and that there has not been a single case reported for the last three weeks?

Mr. SPEAKER: How can the Minister be expected to answer such a question without notice?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (THREATENED DISPUTE).

Mr. HAYCOCK: (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has appointed a Court of Inquiry in connection with the threatened dispute affecting shop men in the employment of the Great Northern section of the London and North Eastern Railway; whether the National Union of Railwaymen were consulted in the matter, while the unions more particularly representing the skilled men were not so consulted; and whether it is the case that one of the unions concerned has intimated that if the railway company attempts to enforce the decisions of the Court of Inquiry, a stoppage of work by their members may take place?

Mr. SHAW: In accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Courts Act I have appointed a Court of Inquiry in connection with this dispute, which is one that might have led to serious public inconvenience. Negotiations in connection with this matter have been going on for some months, and each of the groups of unions concerned was seen by officers of my Department and by me personally; it is not the case, therefore, that only one union was consulted. With regard to the last part of the question, a Court of Inquiry does not give decisions; its business is to ascertain the facts relating to the threatened dispute and to make a report upon these facts for the information of Parliament and of the public. It will, of course, be for the parties to the dispute to consider the report when it is made.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the Debate to morrow, he will state for the information of the House the intention of the Government on the subject of the reduction of
the German Reparation Levy; whether a Treasury Minute issued to-day states that the reduction will take effect until further notice, whereas the announcement in the "Board of Trade Journal" of 28th February and the reply on 4th March to the hon. Member for Barrow fixed 15th April, 1924, as the date limiting the operation of the reduction specified; and whether the difference indicates any change of policy?

Mr. SNOWDEN: There is no difference intended between the two statements The present arrangement will remain in force until 15th April, and will then have to be considered in the light of the circumstances prevailing.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTIONS BILL.

Mr. T. THOMSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Rent Restrictions Bill of their own, or to ask the House to proceed with the Bill which received a Second Reading on the 22nd ultimo, and is committed to Standing Committee A?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The Bill introduced by the hon. Member for the Upton Division of West Ham is being examined in detail. If the Government decide to make any departure from the course already announced, a statement will be made.

Sir FRANCIS LOWE: Is it likely that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw that Bill, and the Government introduce another?

Mr. SPEAKER: The answer given covers that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. REMER: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you have come to any decision as to the number of questions which shall be asked each day by hon. Members?

Mr. SPEAKER: As fax as I have been able to ascertain the opinion of the House, it is in favour of retaining the present number of questions permitted, which is three daily. All, therefore, I propose to do at present is to ask hon. Members to use their rights with discretion, and with due consideration to the rights of other Members. It is desirable, I think,
that we should get through a larger number of questions daily, in order that a larger number of Ministers may be brought under review by the House.
Therefore, I wish to ask hon. Members, on the one hand, to exercise what discretion they may in their supplementary questions. On the other hand, I would ask Ministers to follow the practice adopted by some Departments of circulating with the OFFICIAL REPORT their replies when they are necessarily of some length. If these two things be done, I think we shall be able to meet the views of hon. Members.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it not notorious that there are certain hon. Members who ask a large number of supplementary questions, and could you, Mr. Speaker, not have a personal interview with the principal offenders?

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. and gallant Member was going to supply me with an instrument of correction.

Mr. P. HARRIS: Could it not be arranged to have the third question put down by an hon. Member at the end of the Paper, and allow the first two to appear earlier on the Order Paper? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. McENTEE: If the Government are going to hold an inquiry into the mentality of certain people, would it be possible for them to extend the same inquiry to the mentality of those who put so many supplementary questions?

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY (PRESS INTERVIEW).

Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to give notice that, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-night, I intend to raise the question of the interview given by a member of the War Staff of the Admiralty to the Press on the 3rd instant.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

MILK.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the conditions under which milk is conveyed in the streets, and to move a Resolution.—[Colonel Gretton.]

FAIR WAGES CLAUSE.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the Fair Wages Clause, and move a Resolution.—[Mr. Robert Richardson.]

MINISTERS' STATEMENTS.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the variation in statements made by Ministers, and to move a Resolution.—[Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. Nall.]

BILLS PRESENTED.

POOR LAW EMERGENCE PROVISIONS CONTINUANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to extend further the duration of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921, and to amend certain provisions of that Act as amended by the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1923," presented by Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON; supported by Mr. James Stewart; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL,

"to make further provision for the adoption of children by suitable persons," presented by Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN; supported by Mr. Ackroyd, the Duchess of Atholl, Mr. Harney, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Lieut.-Colonel Rudkin, Mr. Stranger, and Mrs. Wintringham; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL,

"to confer certain powders on the Trustees of the British Museum," presented by Sir DOUGLAS MCGAREL HOGG; supported by Sir William Bull and Sir Malcolm Macnaghten; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That in the case of the Southern Railway Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 123, in the case of the Petition of the 'Duke of Westminster,' against the Bill, the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
2. "That, in the case of the London and North Eastern Railway Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 123, in the case of the Petition of 'Arnold and Company (Lincoln),' against the Bill, the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
1397
3. "That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on condition that the powers to construct so much of Tramway No. 2 as is within the Metropolitan Borough of Camberwell be struck out of the Bill: That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

Resolutions agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. NICHOLSON: reported from the Committee of Selection; that they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Murrough Wilson; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall.
Report to lie upon the Table—

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [27th Feb.], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I wish to deal with some allegations which were made in the Debate yesterday. I will read one extract from the speech made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston), who said:
This is ostensibly a guarantee given to the Sudan Government. We know that the Sudan Government have passed on the contracts to the Sudan Plantation Syndicate, Limited, and we know that the Sudan Plantations Syndicate, Limited, is already paying 25 per cent. to the shareholders. There is no dispute on that."—[OFFICIAL REPOBT, 4th March, 1924; col. 1283, Vol. 170.]
Later on the hon. Member proceeded to say:
The fact is that £13,000,000 of public credit has been guaranteed to this concern."—[OFFICIAL REPOBT, 4th March, 1924; cols. 1234–5, Vol. 170.]
I do not propose at the moment to deal with the particular point of dividends, and I will come to that later, but the statement that there has been £13,000,000 of public money guaranteed to the Sudan Plantations Syndicate is totally devoid of fact. What is the actual history of this credit? In the year 1919 there was a credit of £6,000,000 given to the Sudan Government, not to the Sudan Plantations Syndicate. The money was raised on the guarantee of the Sudan, supported by the guarantee of the British Government. How was that money expended? It was spent, not by the Sudan Plantations Syndicate, but by the Sudan Government, and if there was extravagant expenditure, which has been asserted from the Labour Benches in this House, surely it is not for them to make the charge of maladministration, because
the expenditure of that money was under Government control. So far as is known that money was not spent. What happened when criticism was made in 1920? This expenditure had been going on and the criticism was made that there would not be enough money to complete the scheme. Who was it that made inquiry? It was not the Sudan Government; it was the British Treasury. They sent out an investigator, and he reported that the conditions under which the work was proceeding were not satisfactory, and the contract on that basis was terminated. What happened then? A further investigation was made and a deputation went to the Foreign Office. The then Foreign Secretary (the Earl of Balfour) agreed to a further loan, not to any syndicate, but to the Government of the Sudan, and to give the guarantee of the British Treasury. From start to finish, there has been no guarantee given to the Sudan Plantations Syndicate. The only money that that syndicate has had is an amount of £400,000 which was granted out of a loan in 1919, because the Government of the Sudan wanted to have certain houses and roads made according to their own conditions, and they asked the syndicate to make them under certain specifications which they would lay down. That £400,000, which is the only amount which the syndicate has had, was not a gift; it was a loan on debentures, a loan secured by values three times greater than its amount, and, whenever the syndicate comes to an end, that loan has to be repaid to the Sudan Government. I think the opposition which has been given to this Bill has been given under a misapprehension. It is a distinct loan to a Government, and the contract is a distinct contract with a Government. The syndicate does not come into the contract in any way whatever. I think that if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had been a little more explicit it might possibly have saved this misunderstanding. If he had said plainly that no part of this money is going to the Sudan Plantations Syndicate, that, so far as the present expenditure is concerned, the syndicate has no control over it nor responsibility for it, but that it is entirely the Government of the Sudan, then there would have been less misunderstanding.
The British Cotton Growing Association are partners in the Sudan Plantations Syndicate, but in Lancashire we have never thought that this syndicate was an important factor in any new scheme. It is a valuable incident in the development of the Sudan, but it is by no means indispensable, nor is it the principal factor in that development. I should like to refer to what this syndicate has done. It was established in 1904 and went on for several years losing money. It had no advantages. The cotton which it was growing was not being successfully grown, and it could not be successfully marketed. In 1911, in pursuance of an agreement made with the Egyptian Government, a further development took place on the Gezireh Plain. The agreement was considered disastrous to the syndicate, because the Egyptian Government would not allow water to be taken for the purposes of irrigation between 15th July and 1st March. That made it very difficult indeed for cotton to be grown. It could not be grown as a summer plant. The British Cotton Growing Association then tried to grow cotton as a winter plant, and it was the successful experiment of the Gezireh Plain with a winter grown plant which has made it a success. So far from the syndicate being a successful concern, they were ready in 1911 to go out of the Sudan. They were losing their money, and it was only the pressure of the British Cotton Growing Association which kept them making these experiments. The British Cotton Growing Association have a certain number of shares in it, and they have the right to appoint a director, and they have always exercised that right. When we are told that the syndicate consists only of a few people who are out for what is called financial blood, then those of us who come from Lancashire will demonstrate that that is quite contrary to the actual position.
We have heard of certain dividends given to certain shareholders, and an hon. Gentleman spoke of 35 per cent. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury referred him to the average dividend, which is only 5.1 per cent. he said he would not have it. He told us that the dividend in 1920 was 35 per cent., but he did not tell us that last year the dividend was 17½ per cent. That is a reduction
which brings this concern out of the category of undue profiteers, because the percentage is earned on capital which, when the premium at which the shares stand is taken into account, only represents a little over 6 per cent. on the year. I do not think it will be suggested that, with all the dangers of pioneer concerns and considering the advantages which they bring to the world if they are successful, 5 or 6 per cent. is good enough for the risk that is undertaken. What is the position of others in regard to this profit which is earned in the Sudan? I take the boom year, when they were able to make their best profits. In that year the average price of Egyptian cotton was 45d. per lb. Allowing 5d. for marketing, ginning, freight, and sale in Liverpool or Manchester, because all this cotton has been sold by the British Cotton Growing Association in Lancashire, that left 40d. which had to be divided between the three shareholders in the concern. The native grower got 16d., the Government of the Sudan 14d., and the syndicate got 10d. per lb. At those prices not only was the syndicate making money, but the Government of the Sudan was making money at a high rate, and so also was the native grower. Those, however, were boom times and quite exceptional. We are hardly likely to see them any more. Take the position this year. This year we have an average price of 19d. The cost of freight, ginning, and so on has come down to 3d. per lb., leaving 16d. to be divided between the three parties. That gives 6½d., practically, to the native, 5½. to the Government, and 4d. per lb. to the syndicate. We are not, therefore, going to have the very great profits either for the syndicate, the Government, or the native which were made in 1920. It will be difficult for the Government of the Sudan or the syndicate to pay reasonable dividends unless they can keep a high grade of cotton, as exported.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What would happen if the price went down to 5d.?

Mr. WADDINGTON: If the price happened to be 5d. per lb., both the Government of the Sudan and this particular syndicate would be very much out of cash, but that position is hardly likely to arise. No one expects to see Egyptian cotton down to 5d. per lb. It may,
however, be that when the 100,000 acres are under cultivation, the syndicate's share of 25 per cent. may be too high. The conditions then will have altered since the agreement was made, and I suggest that it is reasonable to hope that this syndicate, if they find that their margin is too high and that there is room for adjustment of percentages, will meet the difficulties of the Government. They have this to deal with: they have only a 10-years' agreement, and, at the end of that 10 years, they will have to clear out of the Sudan unless they can make reasonable terms with the Government of the Sudan; and it is hardly likely that, at the end of that period, the Government of the Sudan would be willing to negotiate a further agreement if the syndicate exact too onerous terms now. The object of this syndicate should be to make it easy for the Government of the Sudan to carry the burden. What is the position in the Sudan so far as the actual working is concerned? How would it be possible to give the advantages to the native growers unless there were some organisation which was able to market the goods, able to see that the pumping arrangements were right, that the seed provided was of the right quality, and that the price obtained in this country was to the greatest advantage of the grower? Whether it be this syndicate or any other, unless there is some organised body able to function in this respect, you are not going to do anything to advantage the natives of the Sudan.
Lord Kitchener went into the Sudan to uplift the natives, to improve their conditions, and anyone who reads the reports of the progress of the Sudan will observe how great has been the improvement in that country. One hon. Member on the Labour Benches made a complaint that there was no possibility of getting to know anything about the Sudan, that no Report was presented to this House, that we knew nothing of the condition of the natives, and nothing of the balance sheet of the Sudan. Surely, hon. Members must be aware, or ought to be aware, that year by year there is presented to this House a full Report on the finances and administration of the Sudan. That has to come from the Governor-General of the Sudan, it is presented to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this country, and it is published. If hon.
Members have not seen the Report for the last complete year, it is Command Paper 1950 of 1923, "Report on the Finances, Administration, and Condition of the Sudan." I think the condition of the Sudan now is something of which we have every reason to be proud. The uplifting which has taken place as a result of the great educational work which is being done at the Gordon College, the abolition of the slave trade in the Sudan—it has been almost completely broken down by the operations of the Sudan Government—all this has been possible only because of the wealth which has been obtained from the cotton plantations, and these are in their infancy in that country. The suggestion has been made that we should limit the price of the cotton which comes to this country, in order that the Lancashire consumer of cotton may get advantages; but I wonder how much those who make that suggestion know of the cotton trade. We are getting in Lancashire, from these plantations, from 10,000 to 12,000 bales of cotton a year, and it is seriously suggested in this House—and His Majesty's Government have sent an inquiry on the matter to the Sudan—that we should limit the price of these 12,000 bales of cotton, which have to compete with the 3,500,000 bales which is the total consumption in this country.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: That was not suggested.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I thought that that suggestion was made, but, if the hon. Member says it was not, I accept that.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We suggested that the profits should be limited, not the price of the cotton.

Mr. WADDINGTON: The suggestion was made that a maximum price should be fixed for the cotton. That is the suggestion which has gone out to the Sudan from the Front Bench.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We are not responsible for the Front Bench. If they said that, they can defend it.

Mr. WADDINGTON: They will, then, have to take their own responsibility for misunderstanding their back-bench Members.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: You misunderstand it, too, evidently.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I am very glad to know that the suggestion is not to limit the price of cotton. But how is it proposed to limit the profits of the syndicate? The profits of the syndicate are governed by the price of cotton, and, if you are going to limit their profits, you will be compelled to limit the price of cotton. But there is no need to talk of a proposal which concerns only 12,000 bales out of 3,500,000. Another suggestion was that the use of this cotton should be restricted to the British Empire. I do not think that any Lancashire cotton traders, and particularly the trade organisations, are in favour of any such proposal. We want, not a limitation of the sale of cotton, but a development of the growth of cotton. If we can get enough cotton grown throughout the world, we are not concerned as to what market it goes into, because we are confident that Lancashire will be able to buy at the world price if there is cotton to be bought. I should like to say a word or two with reference to these grants to the different Dominions. I think it is very important that the Treasury, when they are making these grants, should consider whether, in the expenditure of the money, a reasonable amount is being devoted to research. Research in regard to cotton is one of the most important matters that have to be dealt with, and it is certainly unfortunate—

Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about research in this Bill. If the hon. Member will look at it, he will realise that it is not possible to allow him to go into all these matters, and so leave no time for other hon. Members.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I was trying to deal with the unwisdom of issuing this money unless we make provision that the growth of the cotton will not be destroyed by pests. When we remember that in America, in consequence of the absence of research, 2,500,000 bales of cotton are destroyed each year by the boll weevil—which is ten times the quantity grown in the British Empire, excluding India—I think the importance of research cannot be over-considered by the Treasury when they are making these grants. I should like, if it were possible, to see these subjects considered together. They are of the very greatest importance from the point of view of securing that this cotton
shall be sufficiently and well grown. In Nyasaland we are talking of railways for developing the country for cotton growing, and Nyasaland is losing 33 per cent. of its crop because of the boll worm. Is it wise to develop—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member looks like going on till to-morrow.

Mr. TATTERSALL: In rising to support this Bill, I crave the indulgence of the House. Coming, as I do, from Lancashire, and representing three cotton towns, I feel that it is desirable that Lancashire should speak out when criticisms are made which may affect the growth of cotton in the Sudan. This Bill has my hearty support because it sets out to assist trade, and, especially, I think that the guarantee of our Government, the national credit of this country, cannot be better used than in connection with the growth of cotton and other products that we require as raw materials all over our Empire. With regard to this Vote of £3,500,000, I resent, as a Member of this House, the remarks that are made about men who, at a time when money was wanted to develop a portion of our Empire, came forward and were willing to risk their money to assist in its development, because they happen to have non-British names. Those names have been mentioned in this House, and the House has been asked to take particular notice of that fact. We in Lancashire take a broader view of these matters. We remember that in the 'seventies the coming into Manchester of merchants from different parts of the Continent extended our great cotton trade all over the world. Recently I was in the company of some 800 Americans, and, on analysing their names, I found that 60 per cent. of them had non-British names. I object very strongly—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Had any of them Scottish names?

Mr. TATTERSALL: There were Scottish names among them, but they were British, because we do include Scotland in Great Britain.

Mr. MAXTON: Thank you very much.

Mr. TATTERSALL: I want the House to be careful not to swallow this 35 per cent; too easily. It is not 35 per cent. on the actual money subscribed by the shareholders in that company. The bulk
of the shareholders, instead of paying £1 for their shares, paid £2 10s. to the company, and that money remains in the company and is being used by the company in developing the Sudan cotton fields. Therefore, instead of there being a profit of 35 per cent. in 1920 and 1922, when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington) has pointed out, the price of cotton was high, the actual percentages made in those two years were respectively 13.78 and 14.93. I have no interest in the company and I do not know a single person in it, but it is fair, when the name of a company is thrown across the House in the way it is done, that a proper statement should be made. In the last three years the company has paid on its capital—on what the shareholders paid into the company for their shares—9½ per cent. and in the last year 7¼ per cent. I do not think anyone will consider that 7¼ per cent. is too high a dividend for the risky operation of sending money out to cotton plantations which at the time the company was formed might or might not have proved a success. I hold very strongly that a number of rich men who come forward and risk their money for the sake of developing the Empire ought to be well thought of and their names ought not to be thrown across the House in the way they have been.
About this particular scheme, I appeal to hon. Members to remember that this is a most peculiar contract which we have set out in the arrangements between the Government and the natives and this company. It is a model which we should follow in other parts of the Empire, and even at home. For the Government to be a partner with the undertaking and with the workpeople is an admirable state of things, and whatever high price of cotton is reached, undoubtedly in this scheme the native will get his full share. I appeal on behalf of Lancashire for hearty support of the Bill. I appeal particularly because in this Gezireh plain there has been grown a particular kind of cotton which we want very badly in Lancashire to-day. During the last few years, instead of Egypt growing the very longest and finest staple, they have been growing the shortest staple, so that we are to-day short of that fine staple which we require for our fine manufacturers. We are dependent very largely, and shall be more dependent in future, on our fine spinning trade, because in the coarse
numbers, where we use the short staple cotton of India and America, we have the competition of India, China and other countries. Our expenses are very heavy with the coarse numbers, and they are undoubtedly unable to compete with us in Lancashire. But in the fine numbers we have the skill of the workers, of the overlookers, and of the managers and some of the best machinery in the world for making these counts. It is extremely desirable that this particular field should be developed so as to produce the fine cotton which Lancashire wants. I support the Bill most heartily and trust the House will pass it as it stands.

Mr. HUGH O'NEILL: My observations will not be devoted to the rather thorny question of the guarantee to the Sudan Government, which arouses the ire, shall I say, of some hon. Members, and particularly of supporters of the Government. I want to say a few words with regard to the part of the scheme which deals with export credits. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has, I think, created very nearly a record on this Bill because he has already spoken three times on the Second Reading. He got up on each occasion hoping thereby to curtail debate. But this is a very important subject. We are dealing here with a possible expenditure of as much as £90,000,000. It may be true that there was a Debate on the Committee stage and the Report stage of the Money Resolution, though the latter took place in the early hours of the morning, but what is the procedure of this House for with regard to money Bills if it is not to give ample opportunity for their discussion on the various stages? With regard to export credits, I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade is not here, because I think that is particularly his department. But I hope the Secretary to the Overseas Department will be able to reply with regard to one or two specific questions I propose to put. First of all, it has been stated that the exports credits scheme is not sufficiently known and sufficiently taken advantage of. May I suggest to the Government one reason why that may be so. The original Export Credits Act, 1920, contained a section to the effect that the Board of Trade shall publish quarterly a return showing the amount of any credits granted under this Act and the countries in respect of which credits
have been granted. I have tried to find that return, and I cannot find it. I presume it must have been issued, because apparently it is to be issued by Statute, but searches in the Library have revealed no such return. It is true that a return is made with regard to the trade facilities portion of the scheme, and various concerns which raise capital under the guarantee of the Government appear in the Quarterly Return, but I cannot find anywhere a return showing the guarantees or the payments which have been made under the export credits scheme.
There is in the Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General a good deal of comment upon the administration of export credits, but that merely deals with the actual expenditure which has been incurred during the year, and it does not tell us the exact scheme for which that expenditure was incurred. We are told that £8,500,000 have been dealt with under the Export Credits scheme, and it is therefore important to know in respect of exactly what schemes the money has been guaranteed, because really what it amounts to is that in this respect the Government are undertaking a banking business, and that business entails considerable risks. The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General gives us some idea as to what those risks are. The hon. Gentleman knows that there was a large advance—it was before the guarantee scheme came in—against flax in respect of a contract in Czechoslovakia, and owing, I think, to the decrease in value of the flax and also to appreciation in the Czechoslovakian exchange, that transaction involved the Treasury in what, I think, is the largest loss they have yet incurred under this scheme. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the loss on that flax transaction amounts to at present? The last returns I have seen put it at something like £700,000, but the Comptroller and Auditor-General states in his Report that the total amount of the loss cannot be estimated. I should like to know what it is to-day, and whether it is more or less than that figure of £700,000.
Other losses were incurred. There was a small loss which arose out of bills being guaranteed in connection with a consignment of pickled herrings, and there was a loss in connection with another trans-
action. I think the Advisory Committee were at fault in not having secured a bank guarantee against the depreciation of Rumanian currency, because a bill was guaranteed against a deposit of currency in Rumania, and the currency depreciated from something like 2,000 to 26,000 kronen, and the result was of course a loss to the Treasury. All these instances which I have quoted, and which are public property to anyone who takes an interest in the scheme because they are dealt with by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, go to show that there is some considerable risk undertaken by the Treasury in dealing with a banking business of this kind, and in default of any returns I have been able to find I think, before we grant a Second Reading to this Bill, the Government should tell us what losses have been incurred up to date, and also, more specifically than we have been told so far, to what extent what is called the premium, which is, I believe, charged by the Government in respect of these transactions, either has covered up to date or under an ordinary computation of chances will for a longer period cover that loss.
May I say one more word with regard to possible future transactions under the scheme. I gather that there is something like £17,500,000 still available under the Export Credits scheme. We have been told that £8,500,000 has been applied, and the total authorised was £26,000,000. Is any of that £17,500,000 going to be applied to granting credits to Russia—guaranteeing bills in respect of Russian business? We hear a good deal to-day about credits to Russia. I read the other day that the Russian Government are expecting credits of some such ridiculous sum as £300,000,000. The Prime Minister, when he made his statement on policy, stated definitely and specifically that the only credits to Russia which he contemplated were credits under the existing Trade Facilities and Export Credits schemes, so I presume he means that the only credits to Russia which the present Government contemplate can be credits which arise from the guarantee of the remaining £17,500,000 under the Export Credits scheme, in this Bill. Can the Government tell me this, because I think there is some misconception about it? Does this scheme apply to Russia at all? I believe it does. The original Act of
1920 was to apply only to certain countries specified in the Schedule, but the subsequent amending Act of 1921 enlarged the field and covered the whole world, as far as I understand. If that is so, this money can be devoted to guaranteeing bills for Russia. As against that, I have the authority, privately, of a member of the Advisory Committee, the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), who tells me that this scheme does not apply to Russia.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: As far as I know, we have no power to use it for Russian credits.

Mr. O'NEILL: As far as I read the Acts of Parliament which deal with this matter, the Export Credits scheme now applies to every country in the world and any country in the world. Considering that the Prime Minister stated the other day that the only credits to Russia which he contemplated were credits under the existing legislation, I take it that this money will be available for guaranteeing Russian bills. Perhaps the Government will tell us whether any applications have been received up to date in respect of credits to Russia under this scheme. Owing to the non-recognition of Russia up to a few weeks ago, it may not have been legal to grant them, but I take it that in view of the recognition which has been extended to the Soviet Government within the last few weeks there is nothing to prevent the granting of credits to Russia now.
We all want, if possible, to rehabilitate our trade with Russia, but it will not be the panacea which hon. Members opposite think. It is going to be a long, arduous, difficult task to re-establish our trade with Russia, and it may be that in doing so credits will be required, but to suggest, as I saw it stated by an hon. Member of the party opposite the other day, that the corn bins are bulging with grain waiting to be sent to this country at practically a moment's notice, is absurd and fantastic in the extreme. Nevertheless, with a country of such vast resources and such immense possibilities, it is of great importance that trade should, as soon as possible, and as soon as anything like trust and Russian credit can be established, be resumed in its normal channels. I hope, and particularly
with regard to the questions I have asked about Russia, that whoever replies for the Government will be able to give an answer which will enable the House to realise exactly what it is doing if it sanctions the continuance of the Export Credits scheme.

Mr. MAXTON: I rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I opposed it when it was first before the House, and my opposition has gathered force as I have seen the enthusiasm with which it is supported by hon. Members on the other side of the House and hon Members below the Gangway on this side. I have never ceased to admire the effrontery of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are so strongly in favour of these trade facilities. The only caveats that have been entered against the issuing of credits are in the case of Queensland and Russia. Where there happen to be the working class in power, hon. Members on the other side and below the Gangway on this side say: "Do not trust the working classes." [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I will cite another instance a little nearer home. We on these benches are asked to support a Bill which is pledging British credit up to £100,000,000, at least—credits and guarantees which under certain contingencies may become actual cash, and hon. Members on all sides say: "Hurrah! On you go. Make it £200,000,000, and we will stand by you." That view had the enthusiastic support of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) and an hon. Member who spoke on this side. They say, in effect: "To the four corners of the globe with British cash and British credit, anywhere, so long as it is far enough away and the working classes have no say in the control of it."
Ship mo somewhere East of Suez,
Where the best is like the worst,
And there ain't no ton Commandments—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on! Complete it!"] No, I will not complete it, but the words I have quoted seem to me to represent the cry of British private enterprise. They say: "Do not ship our capital away. When the Labour party or the Socialist party come into power they are going to run away with all the capital in this country. Do not let them do that. We will carry it out to the Sudan and to Nauru, but the Labour Government, the Socialist Government, must stand behind
us in case we might lose some of it." That is a humiliating position for private enterprise to be in—private enterprise that went out with a flaming sword to the far corners of the Empire to carve and to extend the destinies of British commerce and industry. They say: "We will go out and start as British independent commercialists. We will go wherever you like, provided the country guarantees us, so that we shall not lose our capital and our profits." That may be a form of commerce that is well worth consideration, but it cannot legitimately be called private enterprise. Only a week ago we had the Minister of Health pilloried for eight hours in this House, because he had agreed to the Poplar Board of Guardians issuing credits to a certain proportion of the population of Great Britain. The total sum involved in that matter was £150,000.

Mr. E. BROWN: Cash.

Mr. MAXTON: There is more than £150,000 cash in the present transaction. The reason why we are asked to vote this £3,500,000 credit to the Sudan is that if we do not vote it the £10,000,000 credit already voted will become an actual cash liability. If we do not vote this extra money to the Sudan we shall be involved in a cash loss of £10,000,000. The biggest men in the House of Commons were saying last week: "We must stop this profligate policy in Poplar: we must stop this giving of £150,000 of credit to the British working people." The giving of that credit was sounder economics than the present business. It is sounder economics to put the people of Great Britain in a position to be able to buy. Your export trade and your home trade will automatically right themselves. Somebody said that you cannot tinker with economic laws. Unfortunately, you can, and that is what the House has been doing. I believed that my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench had come into power, not to tinker with economic laws, as their predecessors have done, but to understand economic laws and to apply them to our industrial and commercial organisations: but they are tinkering with them in a hundred different ways. In Poplar, or in other parts of Great Britain, you must not issue credits to British people to enable them to live!
If you issued a credit of £2 for each working-class family in Britain to-day, the trade of Great Britain would be £40,000,000 the better on Saturday. That would go into the hands of the small shopkeepers and into the hands of the rent collectors. [An HON. MEMBER: "It would come from their pockets."] It would come from their pockets, and eventually it would go back into the pockets of the wealthier classes of the community. In the first place, it would go from the pocket of the working man into the pocket of the shopkeeper for the purchase of the necessaries of life for wife and family. That would provide the shopkeeper with an opportunity of living, and it would provide the wholesaler behind him with an opportunity of living. It would provide something even for the landlords and the big capitalists and bankers on the other side of the House, who are always telling us of the desperate struggle they have to live in these times. It would help them, in the long run, if they would open their hearts, and voted money not to the Sudan or to Nauru, but to their own British people who they went here to look after.

Mr. KEDWARD: Does the hon. Member mean gifts of money, without any production? How long could that kind of thing go on?

Mr. MAXTON: It went on for five years during the War, when there was nothing but destructive production going on, and I am sure it could go on for 100 years, if alongside with it there was organised production of the necessaries of life. I do not want to go into the whole field of economics, but I am going to oppose this Second Reading upon the general principles upon which it is founded, which are not doing anything worthy of consideration—having regard to the expenditure and the risk to the nation which is involved—to mitigate the evils of unemployment at the present juncture.
5.0 P.M.
I am prepared to allow this experiment to go on to its logical conclusion if I can have some assurance that Clause 4 of this Bill relating to the Sudanese Syndicate will not be made operative until such time as the Sudanese Syndicate comes to the Treasury and makes suggestions as to guarantees, effective control, methods of marketing produce and the selling of the finished product. We have a right to ask for
this. If a person in Poplar wants £2 or £3 from the board of guardians, he has to go before the board, fill up his form and submit to investigation, and he does not get his credit unless for cause shown. If at any time during the course of his receiving that allowance he commits any fault in the eyes of the board of guardians his money at once stops. I think we on these benches have a right to be suspicious of a capitalist concern operating abroad, away from any sort of public control, free from the operations of public opinion in this country, free from the possibilities of surcharge and imprisonment, free from the Law Courts and the police. We have as much right to be as suspicious of lending the nation's credit to such a concern as hon. Members opposite have to be suspicious before they will give a working man £2 a week to keep his youngsters. I am amused at the attempts being made to apologise for the 35 per cent. The whole idea of this Trade Facilities Bill was just to provide that amount of national support to private enterprise that would encourage it to go ahead with schemes that, failing national support, would be dropped. I think 35 per cent is a very reasonable profit! That will be admitted among even the most rapacious of financiers. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury—the new apologist for capitalism—says that if you take the dividend over a period of twenty years, it only averages 5 per cent. I would remind the Financial Secretary that if he took the average over forty years, it would only reach 2½ per cent., and if he took it over one hundred years it would vanish altogether.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I do not in the least object to my hon. Friend's criticism, but obviously you have to confine it to the lifetime of the company. The argument of my hon. Friend is, therefore, perfectly irrelevant.

Mr. MAXTON: I am not quite sure. It may be legitimate at least to consider it from the time the idea was first evolved of the initiation of the company. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington), who has certainly, one has to admit, a very great insight into the affairs of the company, calculated the dividend on what the shareholders paid
for their shares and said it would not come to 35 per cent. But who are they trying to deceive by that? Is is the Financial Secretary, or is it the hon. Gentleman on the back benches behind him?

Mr. TATTERSALL: May I say that it is not a question of the amount paid to the Stock Exchange for the shares, but the money paid to the company being £2 10s. per share instead of £1. Therefore you must take the dividends on the amount paid.

Mr. MAXTON: It is a curious thing that my hon. Friend calculated it and found that they were only paid 7½ per cent., whereas the hon. Gentleman opposite found it was 17½ per cent.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I said that the dividend last year was 17½ per cent. paid by the company, the amount now only being 6 per cent.

Mr. MAXTON: You are giving the figure for 1923.

Mr. WADDINGTON: That is right.

Mr. MAXTON: Is not the proper figure to take the figure quoted in the newspaper from the Stock Exchange? Everyone else knows that quotations vary. For instance, if the shares were bought to-day, since the Labour Government has shown its benevolent disposition towards the scheme, the variation would be a slight one because the shares stand higher than ever before. The actual figures, without any juggling, were, in 1918, 25 per cent.; in 1919, 25 per cent.; 1920, 35 per cent.; 1921, 15 per cent.; 1922, 35 per cent.; and in 1923, as I am informed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, 17½ per cent. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will take these figures and get one of his permanent officials to calculate how they work out, he will find it comes to pretty much what I make it to be, roughly somewhere over 20 per cent. This is a firm which has been in that condition during the last six years, those six years being years during which British support has been offered, during which this nation has been standing behind them. I do not see how a Labour Government can defend it. I do not see how any honest hon. Member of this House can defend it. If we are going in for Socialist enterprise, enterprise owned and backed by the State, it
is only legitimate that this Labour Government should exercise some form of public control both over the lives of the persons who are engaged in the actual production of cotton in the Sudan and over the company. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale tells us that a big share of the actual profits are going into the pockets of the workers engaged in the growing of cotton. That is quite true. According to the scheme laid down, the profits are divided in equitable proportions between the shareholders of the company and the workers in the Sudan. But it does not matter how much you give to these Sudanese people, it is a very trivial thing to give them because to a very large extent the syndicate holds the private property of many of the persons who are now its manual workers.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: I can state that I was in the Sudan many years and I can tell the hon. Member that that is absolutely and utterly incorrect.

Mr. MAXTON: Well, we will not fall out about it, but it is obvious that the hon. Member's denial of what I said is not based on any knowledge.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it in order for an hon. Member to make imputations against the accuracy of my information?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is usual for hon. Members to accept a personal statement of that kind.

Mr. MAXTON: I simply made my remark in reply to a denial of my statement. The hon. Member gave a flat contradiction of the statement I had made, and I contradicted flatly the flat contradiction he made. I think, therefore, we can consider that we are paired. But it does not really matter what the syndicate pay these labourers because, as far as I can gather from our investigations—which I admit were not made on the spot, but I believe my sources of information are very reliable and direct and immediate from people who have been on the spot—every single item that one of these cotton workers uses in his daily life, his food, his clothing, his pet animals, his domesticated animals, are subject to taxation, and you can quite easily give him £1 a week, 10s. a week, or 5s. a week, and then you would draw
away from him, on the Micawber principle, everything by way of taxation and leave him with a bare subsistence. I am not suggesting that British capitalism in the Sudan operates in any other way than it operates here. I think that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been selected from the high office he now holds mainly because of the reputation of his country. I would ask him, why should we throw good money after bad without having some sort of reasonable expectancy that we are to have some control over the ultimate results? There is one other thing I want to deal with that does not arise in Clause 4 of the Bill, namely, the question of the composition of the Advisory Committee controlling Export Credits. Hon. Members opposite expressed approval of that Committee. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) asked for an assurance that the composition of the Advisory Committee would remain unchanged, and I believe the Financial Secretary gave that guarantee by a nod of the head, though I am not quite sure. Is that fair and proper? There has been a change of Government. If the change had been the other way about and there had been an Advisory Committee consisting of three Socialists, they would not have been there now.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I say on behalf of my colleagues that we would be only too glad if the hon. Member or any hon. Member on these benches would come and help us. We would welcome them.

Mr. MAXTON: I am very glad to have that invitation, and I hope some of my colleagues, not myself, will have an opportunity of associating with him in that work. The Government of the day has a right to have direct representation on this Advisory Committee which is controlling the disposition of considerable amounts of money which this Government is directly responsible for. I do not doubt for one moment that the hon. Member for Farnham really means that he would welcome one of my hon. Friends, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead seemed anxious that there should be no change in the present Advisory Committee. I propose to carry my opposition to the Second Reading to the Division lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire (Mr.
Johnston), unless we can get some substantial guarantee that the Sudan Syndicate will recognise that this Government is not going to be fooled as its predecessors have been. We want to know how we are going to have some control. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able in the course of this Debate to give us an assurance on this point.

Lord STANLEY: Unlike the hon. Member who spoke last, I desire to support this Bill. In doing so, I submit that I am furthering the interests of those men and women who work in Lancashire. I know of no one more anxiously awaiting the passing of this Bill than the men and women engaged in the cotton mills of Lancashire. It is true that capital has been carried out to the Sudan, but it has been carried out to that country for the benefit of Lancashire workmen. There is very little opposition in any part of this House to the ultimate object of these schemes, which is to increase the amount of raw cotton, but I am sorry to say, as one interested in these schemes, that there is a great deal of misunderstanding with regard to their management and administration. I should like to deal particularly with the statement that the natives have not been fairly treated. To make my case clear I may, with the permission of the House, go very briefly into the history of the cotton-growing scheme so far as the Sudan is concerned.
In 1900, when the British first went into the Sudan, they found everything there in a state of complete chaos. The population had declined from 12,000,000 to 4,000,000 and the Gezireh Plain itself, which had been fairly prosperous, was practically depopulated. As soon as the feeling of security increased, the holders of the old titles to the land came to the British official, demanded re-settlement, and asked that they should regain possession of the land. A Land Commission was appointed, and eventually the whole of this district was resettled. Naturally this took some time. Resettlement and the preliminary railway works, without which no scheme of development can go on, took about eight years. When that was over, it was time to think of developing the Gezireh for the benefit of our own country and the benefit of the natives of that country. The first step—and the hon. and gallant Member for Bromley (Lieut.-Colonel James) will
bear me out—was that the Government rented the land from the natives who had been settled on it, at a price which, considering the valueless condition of the land at the moment, was a very generous one. About the same time an agreement was come to, under the auspices of Lord Kitchener, who was then in command in the Sudan, between the Sudan Government, the Sudan Plantation Company, and the native cultivators. This agreement has been touched on by many other speakers in the Debate but it is very important as showing how cotton was to be provided and how the responsibilities and the work were to be divided.
The terms were that the proceeds of the sale of the cotton were to be pooled in the following ratio: The native, cultivator who had his land rented by the Sudan Government gave his labour, and in return for that he got 40 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale. In addition to that, he got the whole of the subsidiary green crop which is grown with the cotton. He got education in how cotton should be grown, and he got free water for growing his crops. The Sudan Plantation Company got 25 per cent., in return for which they had to carry out all the subsidiary works, such as smaller canals, roads, bridges and pumping stations. They were also responsible for educating the native cultivators as to the best methods of growing cotton. They also had to act as land banks, in financing the cotton crop on behalf of the native cultivator. The Sudan Government, who did the main irrigation work, were to get 35 per cent. of these profits.
I do not wish to follow the hon. Member who spoke last through the maze of high finance into which he led us, but I will deal particularly with the case of the treatment of the natives. We must remember that when we went into the Sudan in 1900 the land was valueless. They only got a reasonable rainfall once every four years. That meant that they had a hope of getting a decent crop only once every four years. Since we have been there and started irrigation works, they get the equivalent of a good rainfall every year and they get a fair chance of raising a good crop every season. They also get what they never got before, the green crop which is grown as a subsidiary crop, and they also get the benefit of education and advice as to the cultivation of the land. Another matter
which shows, I think, that they cannot be badly treated, is the number of natives from other parts of Africa, including the districts around Lake T[...]had, who used to pass through that country on their way to Mecca without being in any way tempted to remain there under the old regime, who now find the land so promising, so flowing with milk and honey under the present regime, that they settle down there to assist in this cotton growing. Another fact to be remembered is the very large number of the applications which come from natives who wish to be settled on the land, and which far exceed the amount of land that is vacant and could be distributed. So prosperous are these native cultivators that they are not only able to buy more cattle, which I admit is a necessity, but that they are also able to get an increased supply of wives, which, I believe, in those districts is looked on as the height of luxury.

Mr. WALLHEAD: May we take it that the Government is encouraging free love among these people?

Lord STANLEY: Quite apart from that, I would like to say a word as to the attitude towards the natives of those bodies in England who are interested in this development of cotton growing. I can speak with a certain amount of knowledge on that subject, as a member of the British Cotton Growing Association and of the Cotton Growing Corporation. Apart from the humane point of view of wanting to do what we can to improve those districts and to improve the standard of living, it is essential for us, from the material point of view, that the natives should be contented. If we get discontent among the natives the whole of this scheme, on which the future of the land depends and in which a great deal of money has been sunk, is bound to fail, because in places where the native standard of life is not very high, unless they get a fair return for growing the cotton crop, they will let the land go out of cultivation and will go back to some simple form of farming, and of growing some other kind of crop. It is very much to our interest that these native cultivators should get a good price for their raw cotton, and it is particularly to the interest of all those who come from Lancashire that they should have plenty of money to spend, because while we should
be able to buy raw cotton from them, we hope that they will be able to buy the manufactured cotton goods which come from Lancashire.
I do not wish to go closely into the financial aspect, which has been dealt with by so many speakers previously, but there is one point which I wish to emphasise. The Sudan Plantation Syndicate have no control over the larger portion of the loan. To help them with the subsidiary works and with financing the crops they have been given a loan of £400,000. Over the remainder of that loan, which comes to £12,600,000, they have no control. Two points of great interest have been brought up in the course of the Debate. It would take somebody who is more at home in the intricacies of the cotton trade, as a part of cotton growing, than I am to answer them in detail. The first is as to making sure that all the cotton grown in the Sudan should come to Lancashire, and the second is that we should fix a maximum price for the cotton. I think both these proposals extremely desirable, but I think that there is a great deal of difficulty in carrying them out in detail. Nobody would be more delighted than I to see the whole of the cotton crop come to Lancashire. I am glad that it has done so in the past. I would like to see it certain that it would continue to come, but I cannot help feeling that if we put on an embargo like that, so that it could not go anywhere except to England, the other big cotton growing countries of the world might easily retaliate and it might be a very dangerous course of action on which to embark.
Though the Syndicate are not under any obligation to dispose of the cotton in any particular market every bale produced, so far, has been marketed in England and there is no reason to think that there will be any deviation from that course of action. I do not think that it is very much use in crying out before we are hurt. Another point to be considered is how a scheme of this kind can help other industries in the country indirectly. During the last three years orders have been placed by the company in this country for supplies amounting to £250,000. This may not be a very large amount, but it is of great assistance to this country. I do not wish to weary the House any longer with a subject on which we have heard many speeches during the
last two or three days. I understand that the Government intend to have an inquiry into some of these subjects. I hope there will be no delay in that inquiry. We feel perfectly confident that the only result will be to show that the administration, so far, has been extremely good. I appeal to all parties to realise how very eagerly the passing of this Bill is awaited in Lancashire, and to pass with as little delay as possible a Measure which is a vital necessity to one of the greatest industries of the country.

Major MOULTON: In rising to address the House, I ask for the indulgence which is always extended to new Members. This is a Bill on the lines of those which have been introduced by three Governments. It is a Bill which, as far as one can see, commands the support of 90 per cent. of the House. Some of the criticisms of the Bill seem to show that certain misconceptions have arisen as to what the Bill proposes. As I read it, it is essentially a Bill for abnormal times of unemployment. It will pay a premium to those who will accelerate orders and place the orders here when we want work most. I was exceedingly surprised yesterday to hear the sponsor of the Bill, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, say that he could not point to any direct return that we got for the paying of three-quarters of five years' interest. It seems to me that the Government gets a large direct return. The Government is now paying to a number of people, approaching something like a million, 15s. a week. If, by getting work placed here, you can save a large amount of this money, now paid by way of doles, you are getting a direct benefit.
There has been one rather curious criticism, that in some way the Bill infringes the principles of Free Trade. I am glad to say that that criticism came from an enemy of Free Trade. I cannot imagine it coming from any friend. The only thing is that you are asking the British Government to put up one-sixth, and it then says, in effect, "We will do it only if you place the work where it will save us money by keeping down the doles." That seems to me to be the purest and simplest and most straightforward business. There is one provision in the Bill about which I cannot see the good. I could understand that it should apply only to loans raised in the British Em-
pire, and that it should apply only to money expended in this country. But why should it be stipulated that the loan should be raised in this country? If New Zealand cares to raise a loan to place work in this country, surely it is just as much benefit to us, and even more, than if the loan were raised here? I ask the promoters of the Bill to consider whether that limitation is necessary.
The loan to the Sudan seems to stand on an entirely different footing. I think it is a right principle, and that there is nothing we can do better than to develop portions of the Empire where development pays. One cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that we are running a very much greater danger there than we are in the case of any of the other loans or guarantees which we are giving. It is quite possible that in the course of the next 20 or 50 years there might be some serious re-arrangement which would cut off the Sudan or seriously diminish the value of our security there. Although I am anxious to see cotton-growing encouraged generally, yet I want to see also, if possible, that we have a definite hold on that cotton, so that it can be utilised for employment here. I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to see, before this Bill gets through Committee, whether some scheme can be devised by which the country which is now giving the guarantee has, in case of need, the first call on the cotton. I am a supporter of this Bill and do not propose to delay the House any longer.

Mr. THURTLE: I would not have intervened in this somewhat protracted Debate had it not been for the fact that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and other speakers, have made what I consider to be serious misstatements in regard to the profits earned by this Sudan Plantations Company. I have been at considerable pains to ascertain the facts, both in connection with the capital of this company and the profits earned since its inception. I would refer the Financial Secretary to his statement last night, to the effect that if you take profits from the inception of the company up to the present time, you will find an average approximately of 5 per cent. on the capital of the company. My hon. Friend seems to have made a serious miscalculation. The subscribed capital of
this company is at the moment £450,000, but up to May, 1920, the actually subscribed capital of the company was only £150,000. In other words, two-thirds of the capital has been subscribed since May, 1920. If you take the £150,000 up to that date and the profits made up to that date, you get an average of rather more than 6½ per cent. I am generous in assuming that from the very moment of the registration of the company in 1904 the whole of that capital of £150,000 was subscribed. Very probably the whole of it was not subscribed until some later period. If you come to the remaining £300,000 of the capital, which has been subscribed since May, 1920, you will find that on that amount up to the present time there have been dividends paid totalling 67½ per cent., or an average of 22½ per cent. on two-thirds of the present capital of the company.
Reference has been made to the fact that on the capital issued recently there was a premium put. For instance, the £150,000 issued to the shareholders in May, 1920, had a premium of £2 per share put upon it. The later issue of £150,000 had another premium of £1 10s. per share put upon it. You may say that the shareholders have paid these premiums, and that, therefore, they are entitled to a higher return upon their share capital. But this is not the end of the story. If you look at the accounts of this company you will find, on the assets side, an item of share premiums amounting to £636,744. That is undistributed; it is a reserve asset which can be used for the purpose of bonus distributions or anything of the kind. So that you see that when you go into the facts it is perfectly true to say that this company has been making, even for an exploration company, some extraordinarily high profits. I find, on looking at the last return, that there is a "carry forward," which really represents undistributed profits, of £168,000. There, again, you have practically 33⅓ per cent. profit not yet distributed. When this criticism has died down and Parliament has forgotten this little story, no doubt those undistributed profits will go in dividends to the shareholders.

Mr. BECKER: What are the assets of the company? Are they all liquid assets?

Mr. THURTLE: If you take the balance sheet of any company and you see an item on the assets side of share premium account, it represents something over and above the liabilities of the company compared with the assets of the company.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: It is on the liability side.

Mr. THURTLE: It is something which can be swept out of existence and distributed; it can be distributed to the shareholders without any writing down of the other assets of the company. This is an extraordinarily fascinating story of the manipulations of high finance. You have a holding company, the Sudan Plantations, Limited. Someone said just now that this company had received very little of the money which had been guaranteed by the Government. I think that the amount mentioned was £400,000. I want to call attention to the fact that, in addition to the Sudan Plantations Company, there is a company called the Kassala Cotton Company. The Kassala Cotton Company is the child, the offspring, of the Sudan Plantation Company. Nearly the whole of the ordinary capital of the Kassala Company is owned by the Sudan Plantation Company. I am asked what the Kassala Cotton Company is doing? Is it having a very thin time; is it making very little profit? All I can say is that, if you care to look at the Stock Exchange Year Book, the last edition, you will find that the ordinary shares of the Kassala Company stand at 16s. 10½d., or a premium of nearly 1,700 per cent. Evidently this offspring of the Sudan Plantation Company is doing rather well. But even that is not yet the end of the story.
I look further, and I find beyond the Kassala Cotton Company there is the Kassala Railway Company, and all the shares of the Kassal Railway Company are held by the Kassala Cotton Company, and all the way along there is an interlocking of the directorates. We find directors of the Sudan Company on the board of the Kassala Cotton Company, and directors of the Kassala Cotton Company on the board of the Kassala Railway Company. How does the Kassala Railway Company interest us? I will tell hon. Members. I have discovered that £1,550,000 of the capital of that company is guaranteed by this country in respect of principle and interest, and the
Egyptian State Railway, largely by means of that guarantee, is going to construct the Kassala Railway line, which will cover 227 miles. That railway is being handed over as a concession to the Kassala Railway Company for a period of 33 years expiring in 1955. They have not yet made any profits, but in view of the enormous premium at which the shares of the holding company, the Kassala Cotton Company, are standing, we may take it as certain that this railway company, by means of the large guarantee, provided by this country, is going to make enormous profits during this period of 33 years. I submit, as an ordinary business proposition, that companies of this kind in such an extraordinarily strong financial position, ought not to expect to get facilities except on the ordinary market terms. There are many companies and co-operative societies in this country which want to raise money, and these would be very glad indeed if when issuing their prospectuses they were able to say, as this privileged company has been able to say: "This money is guaranteed in respect of principle and interest by the Imperial Government."
There is absolutely no reason that I can see why the Government should have gone out of their way to assist in financing these comparatively prosperous and successful companies. If one studies the history of this company and of the guarantees received by it, and by its subsidiary companies, and if one studies the directorate of these companies, as I have done, one begins to have an uneasy suspicion that something very much akin to jobbery has been going on. I will not say any more than that, but I think it is sufficient. Hitherto, I understand, the record of this Parliament has been comparatively clean so far as jobbery is concerned. I say it comparatively; I know it is not absolutely clean, but it is a reputation of which this House ought to be very jealous, because there are other countries in which politics are notoriously corrupt, and we do not want this House to get the evil reputation for corruption and jobbery which some other representative assemblies have. Therefore, I invite the House to consider this matter very carefully before allowing any further support to go to this particular company. An hon. Member below the Gangway said we might regard the financing of this
scheme as a model to be followed, a model of the co-operation which ought to exist between the Imperial Parliament and enterprising—I will not say plundering or rapacious, but enterprising—exploration and other companies. If we are to regard this as a model to be followed, then I can see this country becoming involved in a regular morass of corruption and jobbery. I hope we can, even now, partly redeem this particular error, but if we cannot, I hope we shall be careful to see that we never repeat it.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Before dealing directly with the subject of the Debate, I wish to withdraw a remark which I made to the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton). I contradicted a statement made by the hon. Member, and said that there had been no expropriations of the natives of the Gezireh, and other places concerned in this Sudan cotton scheme. I find on subsequent research that a decree was brought in subsequent to my departure from the Sudan, of which I was ignorant, and I therefore wish to withdraw my remark. As regards the subject of the Debate, I should like to say at the outset, that I have no interest, direct or indirect, in the Sudan Cotton Company or any of the affiliated companies to which the hon. Member who spoke last has alluded. I desire to approach the subject from an entirely different angle. I am, perhaps, the only Member of this House to have spent several years as an official of the Sudan Government. I went there in 1899 very shortly after the fall of Omdurman, and the pursuit of the Khalifa, and I can assure hon. Members opposite that the claims of the natives of that country to their lands were most carefully considered from the beginning. A Lands Commission sat and examined them, claim by claim. Many of the claims admitted would possibly not have been viewed with so much favour in a court of law in England, but let that pass. Every native of the country who had a claim received a careful and sympathetic hearing. The policy of the Sudan Government was to give the natives of the country every chance, and that policy has been consistently followed by succeeding Governors-General and their staffs.
When hon. Members raise a question as to the control which should be exercised over the concessionnaires in this case, I
feel confident that their alarms are without foundation, because in the Sudan there is the finest Civil Service in the world, or at any rate, as fine a Civil Service as is to be found anywhere in the world. You find there Englishmen who desire to make the Sudan their home, and who treat the inhabitants of the country as men and brothers, and who intend doing so to the end of the chapter. I support this proposal because I am confident there has been no collusion, no jobbery, and none of the underhand work suggested by the hon. Member who spoke last. To begin with, the policy of the Governors-General has been, and is, that when a would-be concessionnaire approaches the Government, the most careful inquiries are made into his status and antecedents, and if there is anything a bit off colour about him, he will find remarkable difficulty in obtaining a concession. It is quite true that the concessionnaire company in this case has very large capital resources, and is, I believe, directed by men of great skill and experience in organisation, but I believe that would be very good for the country.

Mr. STEPHEN: The hon. and gallant Member says, these are men of great skill. Who are they?

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: I believe they are men of great skill. I have not even gone to the trouble of studying their names, because I am confident that the Governors-General and their advisers have been fully informed directly and indirectly as to the personnel of the board. I know quite well what underlies the question of the hon. Member. It is that one, at least, of these gentlemen bears a name which cannot be described as Anglo-Saxon, and there may be others, but surely the chief thing we want to have is a body of good standing, which will do the right and honest thing towards the Sudan Government, the people of the Sudan, and the people of this country. Reference has been made to the Kassala Railway Company. I believe that would be an admirable scheme for this country. The railway material should be ordered in this country, and should provide employment for our hardly used engineers who do not know where to turn for work. Once the railway is in working order, it will carry cotton from that abounding Kassala district, that magnificent agricultural area
hitherto only scratched, and it will carry that cotton to Port Sudan, giving employment to shipping, and to everybody who handles it. It will also benefit the Sudanese cultivators, and those people who, periodically, pass through the Sudan—because a great number of Hausas come from the West Coast of Africa, and in order to make the pilgrimage to Mecca they stay two, three or four years in the Sudan earning enough money to enable them to proceed to Mecca, and return as holy men. These men help to grow the cotton, and they will receive additional money which will be spent very largely on English commodities. Finally, cotton in the Sudan, if properly grown, as it will be under expert supervision, is second to none in the world and will provide Lancashire with the raw material which it so urgently needs.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: Unlike some hon. Members on these benches, I am not prepared to give very warm support to this Bill, because I do not see that it is going to achieve the objects which we are told it is intended to achieve. Its object, I understand, is to stimulate employment in this country, and I am glad that the rejection of the Bill has been moved, because I feel a little more information is required especially with regard to the Sudan development scheme. As I understand it, £10,000,000 have already been guaranteed to the Sudan Government, and we are told that unless we guarantee a further £3,500,000 all the money which has been spent is as good as wasted. I do not quite reconcile that statement with what has just been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Bromley (Lieut.-Colonel James) with regard to the great care that the Sudan Government have taken in examining the credentials of the various concessionnaires who have been entrusted with the work of development in this area. I remember hearing something the other evening about a gentleman with the name, which did not inspire me with very much confidence, of Alexandrino, I think it was, who apparently was able to make a very profitable business out of the initial development in this area. I am confirmed, by the statement that the money spent hitherto will be wasted unless we put up more money, in thinking there has not been that
necessary examination into the credentials of the people who have been mixed up in this business.
I therefore feel that we should have a little more information from the Government, in the form of a Memorandum or of a White Paper, showing us exactly what has been done, what area has been reclaimed, what area is capable of being reclaimed, and what are the prospects of a return to the Sudan Government when the scheme is completed. There was mention made the other evening of 100,000 feddans, but that does not convey anything to me at all, and I think we ought to have some clear statement laid before the House to assure us what are the possibilities of profit in this business. I trust I shall not be accused of a lack of sympathy for the unemployed in this country in criticising this Bill, but there are one or two points in the Memorandum which I should like to put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He states in his Memorandum that the maximum contingent charge to the taxpayer under these proposals is £26,000,000, but I understand there is also a running contingent liability on the other £38,000,000 guaranteed hitherto, so that the total contingent charges to the taxpayer will be something like £65,000,000 instead of the £26,000,000 referred to in the Memorandum.
I also wish to support the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel)—and I am glad he has saved me the trouble of going into it—in his objection to advances to shipbuilders and shipowners. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that we should, at times like this, when we have hundreds of thousands of tons of shipping lying up, be advancing money to, or enabling money to be borrowed on preferential terms by shipbuilders or shipowners like Harland and Wolff and the Bank Line. As I read that prospectus, the £1,800,000 to be borrowed is going to be put into new ships, with Diesel engines, which are supposed to be more efficient and more cheaply run than the ships which are on the water now, so that there does not seem to be any reason why a Line which is quite able on its own credit to raise the money should be put on preferential terms in order to compete with our 20,000,000 tons of shipping of the old class which is on the waters to-day. I do not know whether that point
has been taken into consideration by the advisory board or by the Treasury, which, I understand, controls the advisory board, or at any rate has the final word.
One reason why I am sceptical as to any advantage to be derived from this Bill is that, after all, there is no pool of capital, and you cannot attract capital into one industry and leave it in other places at the same time. I do not see how there is very much hope for employment in this Bill. If you attract capital into the Bank Line, you prevent it going into other industries, and you are consequently going to starve those other industries. I am sure the whole House was delighted the other evening to note the progress of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) in his commercial studies. He seems to have arrived at the stage, at which one usually arrives in the embryonic stage of business, where he has got into the accounts and costing department, and he told us the very obvious thing that any addition to the cost, any increase in the rates, adds to the cost of production. That is true, and I only hope he will bear it in mind when the Votes for £10,000,000 on cruisers and £10,000,000 on Singapore come up, which will have to be paid by the taxpayers of this country.
He also told us that one of the objects of this Bill was to prevent foreign competition, or, at any rate, he alluded to the cost of goods in foreign countries being lower owing to the conditions of labour and the rate of exchange. I remember once talking to a very eminent contractor in Singapore, to whom I said: "I suppose you get this work done here more cheaply than in other parts of the world?" He had just come from Gibraltar. He said: "In my experience, after a long life of contracting, I find that labour costs the same all over the world. You may pay a man 1s. a day or 1s. 6d. a day at Singapore, but you will not get as much work out of him; when you come to finish up the contract and estimate your costs, you will find you are no better off than if you were paying a navvy a full wage in Great Britain." I venture to say there is a great deal too much made of the fact that wages in Germany, or France, or Belgium, or elsewhere are lower than they are here in Great Britain. If people are underpaid and starved, they cannot produce the
same work as people who are working under better conditions. As regards the foreign exchange, I think it works out its own inevitable end, and when exchanges begin to depreciate they go on until the cost of production in the country with the depreciated exchange is just as high as it is in our country.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer, because the right hon. Member for Hillhead twitted Free Traders with supporting this Bill, and he referred, I think, to the provision in Clause 2 which makes it essential that goods should be bought in this country, if the Dominions are to get the benefit of the reduced rate of interest. There are Free Traders and Free Traders. There are natural Free Traders, who are Free Traders from the bent of their mind, who love liberty and do not believe in tariff wars any more than they believe in any other kind of wars, and there are Free Traders from experience, with a practical knowledge of commerce and economics, and I do not know to which class the right hon. Member for Hillhead was referring, but as a matter of fact from a free trade point of view there is no necessity to put that provision in at all. It does not affect the question, because if the money is raised here it must be spent here, whether it is spent by the Colonies borrowing the money or not does not matter. You cannot get away from that, and I hope my hon. Friend opposite will emphasise that point, as he did on a memorable occasion when he had to show a Chancellor of the Exchequer that he knew very little about economics. I refer to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain).
The right hon. Member for Hillhead went on to say—and I do not know how he reconciled his statement with the opinion of the hon. Member for Farnham, who last night gave us a very eloquent address on the necessity of increasing our exports—that, if every one bought everything they wanted here, there would be no unemployment here; in other words, that, if we stopped our foreign trade, there would be no unemployment. Those are the kind of extremes we hear from the other side of the House—one which wants to increase our exports, and the other, as expressed by the right hon.
Member for Hillhead, who apparently believes in stopping our foreign trade altogether in order that we may have no unemployment in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense!"] Well, he said so the other evening. The hon. Member for Farnham naturally takes a great interest in the export credits scheme, and he seemed to express some anxiety or surprise that no more had been done under that scheme. As a matter of fact, I think that one very often forgets that our exports are seven or eight hundred millions a year, and the total guarantee under this system is only about eight millions in four years, an infinitesimal percentage of our trade. What does it show? It shows that there is no need for this export credits scheme at all. As I understand it, the credits which are given under the scheme are long term credits that the banks will not have anything to do with. They are credits more in the nature of a loan transaction than of am ordinary business transaction.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: They are not all long term credits. Sometimes the banks have too much at risk with a firm, and if the firm cannot increase its liability to its bank, because of that position, it goes to the Export Credits Committee for the extra accommodation, and if the business proposed is sound, it is looked into, and every help that is possible under the Act is given.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member. I was only speaking from memory of what the ex-President of the Board of Trade stated in the last Parliament to the effect that the most of these credits were, as a matter of fact, credits sometimes running up to three and four years. We do not want to increase the length of credits. Most merchants are out to get money in as quickly as possible, and if the Government educate people to get long credits, it is not really to the advantage of the traders and merchants of this country. I trust we shall have some information given to us with regard to the Sudan Government and the £3,500,000 which we are asked to guarantee that Government.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to join in the protest against this Bill, and I do so for various reasons, one of which is that, so far as I can see, there has been a tendency to regard the provisions of these
trade facilities and export credit schemes as something in the way of a material cure for the problem of unemployment [...] was interested yesterday in the speech of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), when he said that he did not think this type of legislation would do very much harm, and it would not do very much good. Again and again I have heard it put to us that the Government of the country have been making a real attempt to deal with unemployment because of the fact that there have been upon the Statute Book the Trade Facilities Acts. There has been a great deal said with regard to the relationship of this question to Free Trade and to the different political points of view of individuals. So far as the present Government are concerned, I do not think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made it plain that this is simply a matter of inheritance, and that the Government are dealing with this Measure as a measure of inheritance from the Governments that have passed. There has been so little in this with regard to making provision for unemployment, that I think it is very necessary that that protest should be made at this time, in case it is considered that, in carrying a thing like this, we are doing something to help people who are in such hard circumstances.
The hon. Member for Farnham gave his objections to the provision of these guarantees for shipbuilding, and pointed to the fact that if there were 1,000,000 tons of shipping unemployed, or possibly, some 600,000 tons, it was a very useless sort of business to provide any more shipping until there was a prospect of employment for the shipping that was unemployed at the present time. I think there is a great deal in his argument in that respect. But what I want to suggest to the House is that that should drive us back to the consideration of the whole system under which we are living. There is all that amount of shipping unemployed; there is a tremendous amount of capital unemployed in the form of ships, factories, and workshops, and there are millions of people in this country in want of employment. I suggest, therefore, it is about time we were looking at this matter from a different view. It has often been said in the House, in connection with these Debates, that one of the great
things to do is to find work for the unemployed, for the working-class people of the country. I believe that is an entirely wrong attitude to the fundamental problem we have to face to-day. It is not so much a matter of finding work, but what we have got to do is to arrange our society so as to find a decent standard of life for our people. We have got to find a society that will enable each individual in the community to be able to realise all the expression of his personality, to be able to use his gifts to the best advantage in order to add to the wealth of the community, and to make life a much richer and fuller thing. But we always come down to this: how can we find work for those poor people who are unemployed? Cannot we make a road somewhere? Cannot we electrify the railways of the country? Cannot we do something here or something there—bore a tunnel—and so make work for these people? The problem is not that at all. The problem is to secure for the individual a decent standard of life, and this Trade Facilities Bill, to my mind, is essentially a mockery of the millions of people in this country who are entitled to have full social opportunities in the land. I think I heard some hon. Member say, "Rubbish!" Well, he may think so, there has been so much rubbish in legislation in the past, so far as the interests of the majority of the people in this country are concerned, and I hope that a Labour Government, if it has not got power while it is in office, is not going to do anything to add to the rubbish in legislation that we have got from hon. Gentlemen opposite and those below the Gangway.
I want to say a word with regard to the Sudan. It does not seem to be a question of rubbish, but of something even worse than rubbish. There seems to be something very fragile and fishy about it altogether. I have been trying to make out the necessity for a guarantee of another £3,500,000 in connection with the Sudan. Already there has been given the guarantee of £9,500,000, and, naturally, I suppose, there has been a corresponding expenditure. Consequently, I would imagine that to-day, if there has been an expenditure of about £10,000,000 guaranteed by the British Government, you should have a property to-day upon which there would be no
difficulty at all in getting an additional loan of £3,500,000, without any Government guarantee. I wonder whether the Government loan has got something to do with the extraordinary dividends about which we have heard—the 35 per cents. Those shares, we were told in the House, have risen from £1 to £7, and here we have got a Labour Government, and the people who put the Labour Government into power, asking us to give a guarantee of another £3,500,000. I think it has been said in this House that if we increase the purchasing power of the working-class people, if an additional £1 a week were going into the homes of the working class, you would get thereby such a stimulus to your trade, such a stimulus to industry, that there would be some real material improvement.
The hon. Member for Farnham said a lot of interesting things yesterday about inflation and deflation, about there being no real shortage of credit, and pointed to the fact that there had been only some £8,000,000 of credits taken up. I go back in my memory to the time of the boom after the War. I remember then that one heard on every side how the banks were pressing for the reduction of overdrafts. There was a boom going on. People were getting money, and there was a certain amount of happiness in the country, but there was also the feeling that it was too good to last. What a change there is to-day! Then, when you went along any street, you scarcely met a person that was not well-dressed. To-day you cannot go along any street, practically, without seeing ever so many evidences of the want of the people. When the boom was on, the banks began to press their customers to reduce their overdrafts. Manufacturers were finding that the banks were getting somewhat difficult to deal with, and there was this feeling. You had developed a psychology of fear that you had something which was too good to last. The banks reacted to it strongly. They tried to make themselves safe with regard to the treatment they gave to their customers, and the customers began to call for the reduction of the wages of their employés. The purchasing power of the people went down, and then the machinery of your business started. For example, the miners had their wages reduced. There was the
reduction of so many hundred million pounds a year in the wages of the working class, and when the miner's wife went to the shop to get provisions she could only buy about half, possibly, of what she had formerly purchased. There were as many customers as ever, but they were only buying half the amount. If those people were only purchasing half the amount, the grocer found he was not getting rid of his goods. That went on right through the whole of industry, and here we are to-day with this Trade Facilities Bill giving credits, giving assurances or guarantees that the business is going to be absolutely safe for the moneylender. It is time that we were paying far less attention to the moneylender, and far more attention to the ordinary working-class person, to the unemployed man or woman.
I would like to know from the individual on the Front Bench who is looking after the Bill—I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be able to tell me or not—how it is, since he has spent about £10,000,000 in the Sudan, that these people require another £3,500,000. Cannot they get the loan on the property that has been built by the expenditure of all that money? If it is not a proposition good enough for the moneylenders, I think we are throwing away our money if we are going to put any more into it. It is all very well to say that Lancashire is waiting for the cotton, or Lancashire needs to get cotton supplies. Yes, we are all agreed that Lancashire should get its cotton supplies, but that is no reason why the community should be fleeced, and why we should be parties to exploitation such as is evident in this business. I am hoping that the Government are going to tell us that this is simply a matter of encouragement, that they are simply having these business operations until they get their plans to put before the House for a really satisfactory way of making provision for the millions of people in our country who in the past have only got from the House of Commons oppression and tyranny of one kind or another.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I am sorry that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not in his place at the moment, for I should like to congratulate him on not increasing the amount beyond £65,000,000. There have been many persuasive speeches in this House which
asked that the amount should be raised beyond the £65,000,000. It would be, I think, a great mistake at the present time to raise it beyond that figure. The objects of this Bill are two. One is to deal with unemployment, and I am sure the House must agree that we all sympathise with any effort to help the unemployment, and anything that can be done by this Bill to help to lessen unemployment should be done; and the second point is the raising of credit.
We have heard arguments and persuasions put forward that hundreds of millions of pounds can be raised by credit. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) suggested that the Indian railways should have £100,000,000 of credit, and other propositions have been put forward going into hundreds of millions of pounds. I wish the House to realise that there is only a certain amount of credit. You may say that there are two pools. In one pool you have what is called the balance of trade. That balance is left after the imports have been paid for. As right hon. and hon. Members realise, we import more into this country than we export, but with our invisible exports we have a balance of trade. In 1923 that balance of trade was approximately £97,000,000. That is £58,000,000 less than in 1922, and considerably less than it was in 1913. In the latter year the amount was £181,000,000. That is the only amount that can be invested outside this country unless you are going to depreciate your exchange. In January there were rumours about the Labour Government and the New York exchange fell because it was said a Labour Government had come into office here. I do not think that was the cause at all. I think we had overinvested in the United States, and, therefore, the dollar appreciated against the pound sterling. There is one other pool, and that other pool is what you may call the domestic pool. This is made up of issues in this country, and the issues in 1923 amounted to two hundred and three million pounds, of which £67,000,000 were invested in securities in this country and the balance in Dominion and foreign securities. That is quite apart from any Government borrowing. These two pools, which I may call the balance of trade
pool and the issue pool, are all made up of the savings of the people in this country, and that is the only way credit can be given—that is by the savings of the people in this country. There is a great restriction of credit but no restriction for anything good. If you go across the water to Germany you will find the credit there is 20 per cent. In this country it is about 5 per cent. The more we take out of these two pools, whether it is for trade facilities or by any other proposed Government policy, the less there is to invest elsewhere. If you over-invest you get, as I have said, a depreciated exchange. It is very easy to give guarantees and forget all about them. It is far easier to give guarantees on account of the taxpayer, and with the taxpayer's money, and to forget all about the guarantees you have given. I have nothing to say against the Advisory Committee. I appreciate that Committee, and know what able men it is composed of, and what a great deal of work, as an Advisory Committee, they have put in in connection with the Trade Facilities Act. But I think some of their investments and credits really require criticism from the point of view of the taxpayer.
Before mentioning some of these credits, I should like to ask the Financial Secretary, who is now present, one or two questions. First of all, in these guarantees of credit does the Treasury receive regular returns as to how the companies are doing, every three months or—it may be—every six months? I brought that matter before the House last Session in June or July. I think the Treasury ought to receive regular reports so that they may know how a company is doing, and whether there is a chance of failure or not. Are these credits always first charges? Do the companies which have received credits up till now pay their interest regularly on these debentures which they got with our credit? There are two investments under this scheme, which I might mention, one is, I think, at least £50,000 for the Dalcoath Mine, and there is £10,000 for the Wheal Jewell and Marytavy Mine. I quite appreciate that these two mines bring employment to the Cornish tin miners, and that it is necessary, perhaps, that they should receive credit, but I am looking at this matter from the point of view of the taxpayer. I wonder if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would invest in a
company like this if he had not the taxpayer behind him? There are other investments I should like to mention to the Financial Secretary. There was a list issued on 9th November, 1923. I see from it that the North Wales Power Company received £200,000; the Atlantic Transport Company, £400,000; the Stand-fast Dyers and Printers, Limited, £90,000; the Anchor Donaldson, Limited, £400,000; the Bellaislah Steamship Company, £37,000; and the Seaham Harbour Dock Company, £100,000. The Seaham Harbour Dock Company may be safe as a credit, but that company does not pay anything on its preference or ordinary shares. It may give employment, but I am speaking from the point of view of the taxpayer. There is also the Waverley Shipping Company and the Grahamston Shipping Company, and also the Power and Traction Finance Company of Poland, Limited. I take an extract from the "Times" of 13th February dealing with the matter which says:
The Power and Traction Finance Company, Limited, of London has granted, under the Trade Facilities Act, a credit of £1,250,000 to Polish electrical enterprise in the South Western Industrial centres. The Warsaw tramway system has refused credits but it is understood that its decision is not final. There is a possibility that Warsaw suburban narrow-gauged railways will be electrified. The entire credit is for British-made equipment. This is the first large British investment in Poland.
May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, how is this going to be repaid? Will it be repaid in Polish marks? This loan is for 20 years, and that is a long time. I wonder what the position of Poland will be at the end of 20 years? Mention has been made here of the Bank Line. First of all, an increase of interest was granted from 4½ per cent. to 5 per cent., showing that one of the pools is not quite so fluid as it was. The Bank Line has floated £1,800,000 with a British Government guarantee of principal and interest, the ships being the security for £1,795,000. That does not sound very satisfactory from the taxpayers' point of view, nor from the Government point of view. There is one other point I should like to raise. It was raised by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), and it is in reference to shipbuilding I do not like these advances. I do not like the advance of this money for shipbuilding. The hon. Member for
Chiselhurst (Mr. Nesbitt) read an extract from Sir Alan Anderson's address as President of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. In that address Sir Alan Anderson, who is a recognised business man, and who fully realises the importance of doing all that he can for employment in this country, criticises these Government uneconomic advances of credit on shipping and shipbuilding. I do not wish to trouble the House with reading the whole of the extract which was read by the hon. Member for Chiselhurst, but I should like to read the last few lines of Sir Alan Anderson's observations. He says:
It seems probable that every ship which is built before its time by Government action will postpone a dozen or more other orders which would otherwise have been placed.
That is very important. I do wish that the Financial Secretary would consider whether it is advisable that these loans on credit to shipping and shipbuilding firms should continue. I want him to realise—I do not wish to criticise the Advisory Committee, knowing, as I know, what able men they are who are on it—but I am only criticising it from the business point of view, and from that of the taxpayer!
May I come to Clause 2. I think this Clause was recommended, subject to this House, at the Economic Conference when the Dominion Ministers were over here. The arrangement was to give three-quarters of the interest on any credit. That is to say, supposing you raise your credit at 5 per cent., you are going to assist—and I am all for assisting the Dominions—with 3¾ per cent. of that 5 per cent. interest. That does seem to me to be unnecessary. You are not only going to assist them in that way, but you are going to raise the money as well! If you raise £5,000,000, which is the full amount which is allowed for in the five years, it means you are going to raise a credit of £30,000,000, and you are going to give three-quarters of that interest besides raising the money. One has to realise that you cannot go on expending these pools, which I have endeavoured to describe, for the pools are the results of the savings of the people. It is only those savings that will allow this £30,000,000 to be raised, and what you are doing is likely to jeopardise other loans in other directions. I do not wish to keep the House any longer. [HON. MEM-
BERS: "Go on!"] No, other Members wish to speak; but I desired to raise these points, and I wish to impress on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—and perhaps he will be good enough to pass it on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the necessity that credit must be restricted. You must be careful of credit, because there is only a certain amount. We have raised our rate of interest from 4½ per cent. to 5 per cent. on the Bank Line issue, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be in a position to answer one or two of the questions which I have put, and which, I hope, I have put in a businesslike way, and from a protection of the taxpayer.

Mr. W. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): There are certain advantages in a Bill like this coming before the House. It is an omnibus Bill, and it is so varied that it has enabled hon. Members in certain directions to throw stones at certain Departments and to pass on bouquets to other Departments. In the first two days of the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill the third section received nothing but compliments. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) was very outspoken in his desire to see the Exports Credits scheme developed as fully as possible, and he believes, what I have believed ever since I went to the Overseas Trade Department, that if it was more widely known, there would be more advantages come from that section to the trade of the country than what has been the case hitherto.
The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), who is a member of the Advisory Committee, was equally appreciative at the close of his speech in regard to what has been done, and may be done, in this direction. What my two hon. Friends who have had charge of the Trade Facilities have said about the Sudan business has, I believe, in the ordinary course of debate, exhausted their right to speak again. I have listened to the whole of the Debate since it began on the first day, and I do not think I have heard a single argument from those who criticised Clause 4 which has not been replied to previously. I think the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) contained all the points that have been made on that
particular Section, and my two hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Financial Secretary have dealt with those particular points.

Mr. MACLEAN: Those points have not been dealt with. All that was done was to promise to reply to them when they came up during the Committee stage.

Mr. LUNN: The Committee stage has not yet been reached, and possibly then my hon. Friend will reply, but the position now is that they have exhausted their right to speak on the Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Mr. Hugh O'Neill) is the first Member who has raised any point with regard to the Export Credits scheme, and he has put four or five specific questions which I should like to answer. The first is, are there any returns published of the guarantees that are given under the Export Credits scheme? If my right hon. Friend will look at the Board of Trade Journal he will see that the returns are issued quarterly. The last returns were published on 7th February giving the figures up to 31st December last. The next quarterly returns of course are not yet due. The right hon. Gentleman went back to the time when the Act dealing with overseas credits, advances and insurance came before the House for the first time in 1920, and he dealt with the question of advances. I think he might have raised this question in years gone by.
He also asked me a question with regard to flax production in this country and the assistance given under the scheme as it existed in its first year. The granting of advances to flax producing firms came into operation in the first year when advances were given. It was understood when this Bill dealing with trade facilities and export credits was passed that risks should be taken. The Government undertook to take risks which private traders were not able to take at that time because of the difficulty of securing trade for this country and work for our people. I think they were justified in taking those steps to try and keep the factories in this country going instead of paying out charity and relief to people who were unemployed.
I am not here to say, nor have I heard it said in this Debate, that this Bill is a solution for unemployment. I do not look upon it in that way. This Bill does
not allow a discussion upon the whole scheme of outdoor relief and unemployment, but those subjects have been dealt with by the Prime Minister, and I do not suppose they can come before the House in any one Bill. I am afraid there will be losses in connection with what was done to assist the flax industry at that time, but I am able to say that practically the whole of the losses that have taken place in connection with this Exports Credits scheme took place during the first year when the advances were made. Since 1921, when the principle was changed, I think it will be found that the losses are of no importance whatever. In fact, I think it is safe to say that the premium which is charged will provide, and is providing, a reserve fund which will cover the losses under that part of the scheme.
I have been asked what is the position with regard to Russia. The House will not expect me, or the two Under-Secretaries who have spoken, to tell the House what is the policy of the Government after the reply which was given by the Prime Minister a few days ago upon this question. If I am asked my personal view, I should say quite distinctly that I sincerely hope that this Export Credits scheme may become operative and apply to Russia. There is nothing in the Act to prevent it, because it provides that we may give credits to exporters who are trading with every country in the world, including our Dominions. Up to now the position as to Russia has not been decided, and it is under consideration. Consequently, I must leave that point until it has been decided by those who have the matter in hand on the lines which have been laid down in the Prime Minister's statement.
The Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. Maxton) entered into a very wide field of comparison, and it is a great danger to do that in a discussion of this sort. The question of whether we should discuss the whole effects of unemployment in this country, and compare it with the conditions in other countries, does not, I think, arise in connection with the particular subject now under review. I would remind hon. Members that it is important that we should do whatever we possibly can to see that we extend our export trade. It is a great advantage,
indeed it is a necessity, for this country, and I shall do whatever can be done by the Department with which I am connected. Bearing in mind the statement of how small is the work we can do in connection with this particular Bill, I am prepared to take every means in my power to assist traders to find work for their workpeople, and to assist our people in this country, so that they may be able to work and earn a decent living wage. I do not say that all this can be done under Clause 3, but I think something more can be done that has been done in the past. I think there has been rather too much rigidity and severity in dealing with these applications in the past, and I am looking forward to more leniency in the days to come. The returns I have called for as to the trade done under the Export Credits scheme show that, during the last few weeks new business has only been sanctioned to the extent of about £25,000 a week. I would like to see that increased by at least four times that amount, and if this Bill is passed making provision for an increase of the period upon which guarantees can be given from September this year to September, 1927, and the period of liquidation from 1927 to 1930, there is a possibility of using the amount of money which was laid down in the Act of 1920 and is still unused before that time has run out at the rate I suggest of four times the amount of what has been done up to the present.
The constitution of the Export Credits Committee has been criticised. I have had opportunities of meeting the chairman of the Advisory Committee, and I must say that I am very pleased to find a man like the Hon. Sydney Peel, who has shown such interest in this question, and I believe he is most anxious to make the best use of this scheme in the interests of this country. At the same time, I think it is important that we should show some care in using the taxpayers' money. I have been connected with public life all my lifetime, and I have been accustomed to spending other people's money, and in doing that we should be as careful as if we were spending our own, and it is our duty to see that when it is spent it should be spent wisely and well.
7.0 P.M.
I have taken steps to see that the Committee is increased by one member, and I have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) to become a member of this Committee, and I am
pleased to say he has accepted. He will be able to attend the Committee, and assist them in doing more work than we have been in a position to do in the past. The Advisory Committee strongly recommends that we should extend the scheme in connection with Clause 3 of this Bill. This Committee is composed of more than 20 of the leading business men in this country who know something of industrial affairs, and they have strongly urged the necessity of extending the period at which guarantees can be given and the period of liquidation in accordance with the Bill. I think I am safe in saying, although it may not be a good point to make, that the late Government before it went out of office had decided to introduce a Bill on the lines of this measure with regard to exports credits, and intended to extend the period upon which credits may be given. I am not, on a Bill like this, going to enter into the great question of nationalisation or public ownership in industry. My own position is perfectly well known upon these matters. I do not see any reason why I should alter my views with regard to them, but the facts of life teach me that, although I want to reach that position, I shall have to endeavour to do something tangible for the people while I am alive. If I can do anything by means of a Bill like this to secure some opportunity of earning their livelihood for our workpeople, I am doing something in the proper direction, and something of a practical manner at the moment. It is not simply a question of diverting trade from one particular individual to another. Markets are becoming narrower by reason of the fact that countries abroad are developing their own industries, and by doing that they are narrowing the possibilities of this country. The Government should take risks of this kind, and continue to take risks in this matter, so that the trade which ought to come to this country, and which can come to this country, may be diverted from other countries to our own.
7.0 P.M.
I am satisfied that there are opportunities that may be taken with regard to this Bill, and facilities that may be given which will be of an advantage to our people. I want to see this scheme, small as it may be, with regard to the whole question of trade development in the country, used to the full advantage.
It is not satisfactory to me to hear the statement that has been made in this Debate, that, although the Government four years ago decided that the maximum to which we might go in this matter of export credits, should be £26,000,000, only £8,500,000 has been used up to the present moment. There are something like £17,500,000, and I hope and trust that in the period still left, we may find traders in this country, who do not know of this scheme, who will seek to do export trade, and take advantage of it more than they have done in the days gone by.
There was one point raised by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) in his speech last night. He said that the applications which had been made to the Exports Credits Committee totalled £18,000,000, although they had only given out £8,500,000. The reason he gave was that trade was not there, and that they could not use the credit, although they had been guaranteed it, because of that fact. So far as I have heard from a very excellent body of men who conduct the Export Credits Department in connection with this business, the whole of the facts were not stated with regard to the advantages of this scheme in the figure of £8,500,000. I believe it is safe to say that after full and complete inquiries, which have been made in many cases by the Exports Credits Department, bankers themselves, in order to save the exporter the premiums, have backed the exporter, and so the trade has not come through the Export Credits scheme. I think that is one other instance in addition to what was said by the hon. Member for Farnham in his speech yesterday. I have so little to reply to with regard to this particular side of the question, that I may leave it, knowing that the Whole House, practically, is in support of this particular phase of the Bill. On the other matters, I feel, as I have stated, that we may leave those, in the light of what has been said in reply, after three days' debate, by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to deal with on the Committee stage of the Bill. There are other opportunities in which hon. Members may discuss all the points in this Bill, and after three days' debate, in which there has been a great deal of repetition, I hope that we be able now,
or in a very short time, to have the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. VIVIAN: I do not rise in any spirit of obstruction to offer a very few observations concerning this Bill. Before passing to the Bill itself, I would like to refer to one or two observations of the hon. Member who has just spoken, concerning trade and employment. I understood him to say that there was a contraction of our foreign trade, because other countries were engaged in manufacturing for themselves, and he implied that that was having the effect of closing our markets. I suggest to him that that is not in accordance with the fact. We have it on the authority of Mr. McKenna himself, the head of a great bank, that at this moment this country is doing a far bigger proportion of the world's trade than in 1913. It is the world's trade that has shrunk, and our share of it is greater than it was before. I suggest to the hon. Member that it is nearer the truth to say, not that foreign manufacturers have taken our place, but that they have not yet recovered their productivity which they lost owing to the War. I have never, in my little experience of Parliamentary life, known of such important recommendations concerning finance being made to the House with so little information concerning the experience in regard to the advances that have been already made. We have had no White Paper issued to us giving us particulars of what have been the results in regard to advances already made. I have no doubt some of these particulars can be discovered if we dig for them in different places. I suggest that it would have been more satisfactory, if in the submission of this Bill, the hon. Gentleman had given a summary of the results obtained up to now, as a result of the advances already made. Judging from his interesting and informing speech—more informing than any speech from the Government Bench—the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) did not encourage us to go far—
I said I did not think the Bill was likely to do much good, nor, I added, was it likely to do much harm.
That was on the introduction of the proposals. He proceeded:
I may say that events have shown that thy forecast was justified. The Measure has
not done much good, and little or no harm."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1924; col. 1267, Vol. 170.]
That really is not strong recommendation for the Government proposals. I hope the Government, on the Committee stage, will give further information regarding their experiences with these advances. I would like to refer to the suggestion to which, I understand, the Government is rather favourable, that the cotton resulting from the enterprise in the Sudan should have its market practically limited to Great Britain. I hope the Government will not be betrayed into taking any action of that sort for various reasons. First of all, I would emphasise that, so far as the British Empire is concerned, it has been looked upon with tolerance, in the main, by the whole world, largely because we have not made it a private preserve on behalf of the industries of Great Britain. We have looked upon it in the spirit of trusteeship, rather than in the spirit of exploitation. I trust the Labour Government will not take a step away from that great standard which has been set in the past. It does incite other countries to take similar steps, and I suggest that if we antagonise the rest of the world by treating these other parts of the Empire as our private preserves, we may expect a retaliation from other countries. For instance, take the United States. We know how much Lancashire depends on the cotton of the United States. If we put restrictions along the lines suggested, we may expect retaliation from other countries. My third and last point, and the main point which causes me to rise, is that I want to direct the attention of the House and the Government to these words in Clause 2. It speaks of guaranteeing a certain rate of interest
subject to the loan being expended in the United Kingdom.
Paragraph (c) in the earlier part of that Clause says:
The application of the proceeds of the loan in the manner proposed is calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom.
I ask my hon. Friend: Does he hold the view that it is necessary, desirable, or expedient to lay it down that this money must be spent in the United Kingdom in order to increase employment in this country? I have a much higher opinion of my hon. Friend than that. I have
not come into close contact with him, personally, but I can assure him that I have watched with interest his position in politics, and I am satisfied that he does not believe that. I hope that he will see his way in the Committee stage to delete that restrictive condition:
expended in the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members smile. Do they believe that? Evidently, hon. Members opposite associate themselves with the remark, I occasionally hear in the House, about sending money abroad. Do they really believe that that is how business is done? There is not a single answer. Do they really believe that "sending money abroad" is the right expression to use in describing a commercial transaction? The only object of exporting is to obtain imports; there is no other object in business. That seems to be perfectly clear, and it follows that there is no decrease in employment in this country because the money voted under this Clause happens to be spent abroad. Let me take the illustration which my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) has already brought to the attention of the House, namely, that of the importation of cement in connection with the carrying out of a work of public utility, where the foreign quotation was 11s. per ton below that of the British combine. Is it suggested that if that public authority bought that cement from, say, Belgium, it would lessen in any way the demand for labour in this country? It might lessen the demand for workers in the cement trade, but, surely, Belgium does not get paid until the equivalent in goods or services has gone back to Belgium. Hon. Members opposite smile at that; I await their explanation of some other method by which trade is carried on. It is only on that basis that you can carry on trade. If you attempt to carry it on on any other basis, unless you are a philanthropist, you will find yourselves in gaol, or in the Bankruptcy Court, or in a lunatic asylum.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir PAGE CROFT: Would it not be better in that case to invest all our money in foreign industries?

Mr. VIVIAN: If you were paid your interest that would be excellent, and I presume the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be satisfied with that. I suggest
that one of the results of such restrictive Clauses—and it is a real, practical issue—is to hand over those who are spending this money to the tender mercies of combines. I wish the hon. Member for Farnham were in his place, because he is a member of the committe dealing with the administration of these funds, and I feel sure he would agree that it would be helpful, to those who are arranging for these funds to be laid out an enterprises, that they should have freedom of choice in regard to the markets in which they should deal. Once you deny them freedom of choice you put them under the heel of a national combine, with the result that prices are inflated, and the usefulness of the money that has been voted is restricted. I am going to plead with my hon. Friend as to whether he cannot see his way, before this Bill passes through the Committee stage, to delete that objectionable provision.
I would conclude by saying that this is not without its importance in connection with world opinion. The action taken by this House has its effect upon opinion outside these islands, and I am sure my hon. Friend agrees with me that one of the great needs in Europe at this moment is to get those small nations, which have been created out of the Peace Treaty, to fall into line, to break down their barriers, and to arrange for exchanges amongst themselves on a Free Trade basis. There is not a banker or business man who knows that part of Europe who would deny that it was one of the worst features of the Peace Treaty that it did not provide for Free Trade between those newly-created nations for at least 10 or 20 years. They are at the present moment engaged in strangling themselves by restrictive tariffs, and taking themselves deeper and deeper into bankruptcy and poverty. It does not help us in bringing these nations into line on a better economic plane if this House goes back on its policy of freedom and Free Trade, and introduces into Bills of this sort Clauses of the protective kind to which I have alluded. I apologise for having taken up so much time and I assure my hon. Friend that it has not been for any purpose of obstruction. I hope he will see his way to reform this Measure when it goes to a Committee.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary knows quite well that I support this Bill, and,
therefore, have no intention of delaying its Second Reading or of speaking for purposes of obstruction. I only rise because this is, probably, the only opportunity, throughout the whole passage of the Bill, of dealing with a point which I think has only been mentioned to-day in connection with the guarantees given by the Committee which has been referred to from time to time. I am in a little difficulty in this matter, because I have such a very high regard and admiration for the excellent and disinterested work which is done by these very influential and highly respected gentlemen, who are known so well throughout the City, and, indeed, throughout the country. I do not think, however, that they will object to my criticism, if it can be called a criticism, when they realise that its object is to put before them the wish of a certain number of people, at any rate, that, instead of concentrating quite so much upon the protection of the taxpayer, they should, if necessary, consider opening their hands to some extent.
From time to time applications are submitted for large guarantees for the purpose of promoting trade and helping employment. I have not a word of criticism about them except from one standpoint. In this country, to-day, who is it that wants money? It is not the large trader, but the small man who has difficulty in getting money. I do not suggest that this Measure will immediately help the little man, or that it is possible to set up an organisation which would remedy the difficulties of the present system, but let us be clear what the difficulty is. It is not the great business houses, the great manufacturing concerns, that have difficulty in finding money; it is the small man, and it is, perhaps, not unfair to say that that arises from the circumstance that in recent years a large number of the smaller banks have been amalgamated in a few large concerns. I daresay those amalgamations have resulted in good in some directions; I am not criticising them; but I do say that I think it is a pity—that it has done away with the intimate touch which existed in the old days between the private banker and the small tradesman or manufacturer. The result is that a large number of small people cannot get money at all. They may have perfectly sound schemes, perfectly sound enterprises, but, unless they can show a sufficient series of
years of good profits, a sufficient series of good balance sheets, it is impossible for them to get money from the public. Unless, indeed, they are on a sufficiently large scale, they cannot get money from the public at all.
I think it might be possible, through some central organisation, to help the small man and to do a certain amount of good. It is only reasonable that these eminent gentlemen should be more than careful over the taxpayers' money, and I do not want to suggest that they should not be; but the point is that, if too great care is taken, the result is that, while a large amount of money may be guaranteed to large concerns, enabling them, perhaps, to raise money a little cheaper—which, perhaps, is a good thing if it anticipates work that they would not otherwise do—it does not really get over the difficulty of the small man. I do not want to go into the question of loans for the building of ships, as that has already been dealt with, but certainly it is not unfair to suggest that it is a little doubtful whether it is advisable to guarantee money for building in advance a large number of ships. I have spent a good many years in the shipping industry, and I am not sure that I can say I think this is the most likely way of bringing about a revival in shipping. An anticipation of trade requirements in that way may not always be good, but there are other directions in which you can anticipate, particularly in connection with manufacturing, which would be very valuable, and that is why I have suggested some sort of organisation.
It may be very difficult to help the private trader or the small man, but there is one matter with which I came into touch, in connection with this Act, only a few months ago, namely, an attempt to promote a sugar beet factory. That, I think, can be taken out of the category either of the small man or of the large concern. It is simply put forward from the point of view of the public interest. A certain amount of money was subscribed in the neighbourhood of the Kidderminster Division, which I represent. It was subscribed locally, largely in the public interest, and something like £50,000 was raised in ordinary shares. They then proposed to ask the Trade Facilities Committee for a guarantee, to enable them to raise some of the other
money that was required. The Committee were very nice about it, and said they would certainly consider it, but, when it came to the point, they said, "We will give you a guarantee for a further £150,000, provided you give us first mortgage debentures on the proposed factory." The people who had raised the £50,000 objected, somewhat naturally, as I think. They said, "We do not want to invest in sugar; we are not sugar experts; we are investing in this business in ordinary shares because we hope it will be prosperous and give us good returns, but also largely because we think it is a good thing for the country, that it is a patriotic venture. If the Government are going to do anything, surely they do not want to take a mortgage on the whole concern, and put us in the cart if anything goes wrong? Will they not come in on the same basis as ourselves"? That was a not unreasonable attitude.
I do not say the thing entirely failed from that point of view, because I am afraid that, as in the case of many other ventures of the same kind, it remains for another right hon. Gentleman to make a statement very soon which will assure the people who are interested in sugar beet that the present Government will carry on the decisions of the last Government in connection with that question. It is a vital matter to the country, though it would not be in order to discuss it now. I only want to say that I hope it will be brought to a head when it is known that that industry is going to be encouraged by being given some sort of security over a term of years. It would have been perfectly possible, or almost possible, to raise the money for which we asked in the City of London on the same debentures. I do think that those eminent gentlemen who have this matter in hand will not object to a criticism which says it is not much use holding their fist so tight that they will only give money practically on the same terms on which it can be raised from the public by the ordinary channels. If it is going to be of value it should be a little easier than that. I know it will not be taken that by that I mean they should open their hands too widely to all sorts of schemes.
One last point I want to ask hon. Members to bear in mind. There has been a great deal of discussion, some of
which, if there were time and if it were fair to do it, I should like to follow on these various schemes which have been passed, but does not the hon. Gentleman think a great deal of this could have been avoided if it had been possible to put before the House a short and simple statement as to some of the reasons which have been prominent in the mind of the Committee in granting these guarantees? I do not suggest that they should be in any way bound to do it. I do not suggest that they should give a longwinded statement or that they should attempt to answer criticisms. I have every confidence in them in every way, but I think it would obviate criticism if it were possible for them or for the officials to attach to the statements which are issued to the House of Commons some very short account of the reasons which have led them to give these guarantees—something more than the mere building of ships in Glasgow or Belfast.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That would be an intelligent discussion—the building of ships on the Clyde.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: If the hon. Member looks through this list he will find that Glasgow has not been neglected at all. In fact, I think Glasgow has got a little more than its fair share, if it is possible for Glasgow to get it from this House. At any rate, it would be of value in obviating criticism and would make the public even better acquainted than they are at present with the great work the Committee is doing. I should like to have talked about the Sudan, but time will not permit. I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I know it will do good.

Mr. MACLEAN: I should like to reply, before going further, to the statement the hon. Member made at the end of his speech with regard to the guarantees to shipbuilding or ship owning firms for the building of ships. If he looks at the place where those ships have been built he will find that Glasgow has not received any of them, and consequently Glasgow has not received even its own share, to say nothing of receiving more than its share.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not think it necessary to defend Glasgow. I am certain there are enough Members
in the House to look after Glasgow without me. In the very first item of the list I have here it says, "Harland and Wolff, £1,493,000 for the establishment of ship-repairing works on the Thames and constructing new wharves at Glasgow."

Mr. MACLEAN: Wharves are an entirely different thing. By far the greater part of the money which was guaranteed was spent in other places.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I am not defending them in any way.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not defending them either. I should like more spent there. I should like to see some of the money which is presently being guaranteed for foreign purposes spent on excavating the Renfrew Dock, the scheme passed by the House many years ago, but the work on which has been held up for certain reasons. It would be of considerable advantage to the people in the Clyde area and in Renfrewshire, and it would guarantee them a considerable amount of employment for a year or two to come. I should like to welcome the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) amongst the opponents of the Bill. He read out certain things from a list and suggested that he was here as the guardian of the taxpayer and that he watched over the expenditure of the taxpayers' money. I noticed that in all the lists that he read, and in all the names he read from those lists, he did not mention the Sudan Company. I hope when we go to a Division he will show that he is equally virtuous in looking after the taxpayers' money in other matters and that he will be identically the same when it comes to spending money on the Sudanese company. The hon. Member who is on the Advisory Board made a reference to the surplus of shipping which we have and objected very strongly to the Trade Facilities Fund being used to guarantee the building of ships on the ground that there are already at least 600,000 tons of surplus shipping.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The ground was that I think it would do more harm than good to the shipbuilding men whom the hon. Member wishes to help.

Mr. MACLEAN: I quite agree, and I recognise the force of the argument that
where you have a surplus tonnage, to go on constructing more is not serving any useful purpose in providing work. If I might make a suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade, it would be that he should bring the Plimsoll load-line back by abolishing the Regulation which was passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when President of the Board of Trade, and which was considered to be equal to making a present to the shipowners of a million tons of shipping. If you abolish that Regulation and re-establish the Plimsoll line, the existing surplus of 600,000 tons would not be sufficient to make up the million tons which the abolition of that load-line gave to the shipowners.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: There is a Plimsoll line.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am aware that there is a Plimsoll line, but the Regulation passed by the right hon. Gentleman raised it and made a present to the shipowners which is estimated at nearly a million tons. We want that abolished and the load-line put back to the safety measure established by Plimsoll in this House. Quite a few Members who have been supporting the Bill have been taking exception to the strictures which have been passed upon it by hon. Members on these benches who have been discussing the guarantee to the Sudanese Company. Might I draw their attention to the Title of the Bill? It is
to amend the Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 and 1922, to authorise the Treasury to contribute towards the interest payable on certain loans, the application of which is calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom.
Then, finally,
to amend Section 3 of the Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee Act, 1922.
The amendment of that Section 3 brings the Sudanese Company in with the extension of the guarantee which the House is asked to give to it. The purpose of the Bill is that the loans which are to be guaranteed have to be applied or spent in such a way as will be calculated to promote employment in this country. I want to know why the guaranteeing of the construction of a railway in Poland is going to guarantee employment in this country, unless the material has to be manufactured in this country, and in that
case it is only the material for the railway which will be manufactured in this country. The whole laying down of the railway will be in Poland, and that will take up a very large part of the expenditure of the sum which the House is asked to guarantee. [Interruption.] Are you going to build the railway here and then take it over there? Of course you are not. The unemployed in this country have not benefited very materially by any of the loans which have been guarteed under the Act. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, who have only been a matter of five weeks in office, may not have all the details concerning the previous Acts which have been passed, but I challenge any right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Bench who has had anything to do with the previous Trade Facilities Act or the guaranteeing of loans, or the supervising of any of the applications which were made, whether they can point to any scheme for which money was given which has brought employment in any degree to working men who have been unemployed in this country. There is no reply from any of them, not even the member of the Advisory Board. They know perfectly well that the money that is being spent does not materially affect the number of the unemployed in this country. Consequently the purpose of the Act is not carried out according to its title and the Acts have proved ineffective, and there is no guarantee from anyone on the Front Bench that this Bill will be any more effective than have those which were passed previously. With regard to the Sudanese company, the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department says there has been a great deal of repetition. A great deal of repetition has come from the Front Bench, repeating excuses previously made by occupiers of that bench.

Mr. PRINGLE: Shame!

Mr. MACLEAN: You would have done the same.

Mr. PRINGLE: We should have done it better

Mr. MACLEAN: There is a question about that. [Interruption.] I do not include the Noble Lady (Lady Terrington). She is not yet sufficiently experienced in the ways of the House. With regard to the Sudanese guarantee, we
require to repeat things which have been stated previously, because we have not yet received any reply from any one on the Front Bench as to what is going to be done regarding this. The only thing we have had in any way resembling a reply is the statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that, if we did not give this further guarantee of £3,500,000, we might lose all the money we had greviously guaranteed by the Sudan Government being called upon to make good that which had already been guaranteed and the expenditure that had already gone on. Is this to be a never-ending guarantee to this Sudanese Government and to the company? Have we to go on constantly finding money? Is there to be a special Section in the Trade Facilities Bill of this year, and a special Section in the Trade Facilities Bill of coming years, giving an additional guarantee, and are we going to have the same excuse put forward on the next occasion by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or his successor, giving the identical excuse that was given by Members opposite when they were in office? Is it not time that this thing should be stopped? Why is it that we are finding money for the Sudan? Has it brought employment to this country? Is it likely to bring employment to this country? The Financial Secretary was asked whether it was the case that these 70,000 bales of cotton which are expected to be grown in this area, once the work had been completed, would come to the Empire, and that the Empire would have first claim upon all the cotton grown in that area. He could not give us that guarantee. The cotton can be sold at the world's price to anyone who chooses to buy it, irrespective of the nation to which they belong. Therefore, the statement made by some hon. Members that this scheme is in the interests of the Lancashire cotton workers is entirely erroneous.

Mr. FINNEY: If you increase the world's supply, you reduce the world's price.

Mr. MACLEAN: That does not always follow. We produce millions of bales of cotton, and these 70,000 bales will be a mere drop in the bucket in so far as they will affect the world's price. Do be
sensible, even though you are Liberals. The whole question has been, not one of reducing the price, but of finding work. One argument has been that these 70,000 bales of cotton are going to afford more employment to the cotton operatives of Lancashire. That was the only argument put forward, until some Liberal Member, by a brain wave, discovered, by way of interjection, a new argument. The three hon. Members who are now on the Government Bench have exhausted their right to reply, but we have the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the Government who might very easily give to us the guarantee for which we are asking, and give us the reply for which we are asking, and not fob us off with the statement: "We have discussed this matter long enough; these same matters can be brought up in Committee, and we shall have an answer ready." Some of the hon. Members on the Front Bench took part in the discussion and in the Division on this Clause a year ago, and the arguments which we advanced when we were sitting opposite are as sound to-night as they were on that occasion. To-night we intend to divide if we do not get the satisfactory assurance from our Front Bench which we asked for from the other Front Bench a year or so ago. It is not sufficient to say that our Front Bench are carrying an evil inheritance. No one need carry an evil inheritance any longer than it is necessary, and it is not necessary for the Labour Front Bench to carry this inheritance. They can throw it over, and tell the Sudan Government that they will not carry it any longer, unless they get the guarantees for which we have asked.
Reference has been made to the men of wonderful business capacity and directive ability who deal with these matters in the Sudan. They are the men who handed over the contract to a Greek and allowed him to waste £6,000,000 of money on the erection of this barrage. They allowed him to get off with £600,000, and we are told that they are men of directive ability. These are the men who are to be guaranteed against loss by the British taxpayers and the British Government. The thing is preposterous. Men with names like Eckstein, Wernher, Wagner, and Beit are, surely, not men who are very patriotic towards this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are they not high-
landers?"] If they are, they come from the highlands of Palestine. I know that none of them were in the Gordon Highlanders. They may have been in the Jordan Highlanders. I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the statement he made last night, whether he remembers statements he has made in other places and on other occasions, and I would ask the Secretary for Overseas Trade, in view of the statement he has made to-day, whether he remembers other statements he has made in other places and at other times. We want to do something for the people while we are alive. As the Secretary of Overseas Trade spoke to-night, it seemed to me that he was repudiating the doctrine which he has advocated inside and out-side this House. Are we to take it that it is a repudiation on his part?

Mr. LUNN: I know that my hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. I do not give way to him or to any member of the Labour party in my desire to attain what I have stood for all my life. I make that very clear. The objects that I want to reach are, as I have stated many times in this House, objects within my own lifetime—it may be a short lifetime, for life is short—and I want to take the opportunity of doing what I can to provide work for our people, realising that the other thing is not as immediate as is the call, that is, that we should find work.

Mr. MACLEAN: In that case, you look upon it as being a long distance ahead before you can secure it.

Mr. LUNN: Do not insinuate.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not insinuating.

Mr. LUNN: Well, do not.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am taking your own words, and their meaning, and that is the interpretation I put upon them.

Mr. LUNN: That is sufficient.

Mr. MACLEAN: It may be sufficient for you, but it is not sufficient for me. I am optimistic enough to believe that we can get a great deal more than is suggested in this Bill, in our lifetime. This thing has not brought work, and I do not think it will bring work to those who are unemployed. In these circumstances, a stronger attitude ought to have been taken up by our Front Bench in regard to bringing forward these proposals. They ought
not merely to claim that it is an inheritance from the past Government. In taking up that inheritance they should have taken stronger and more secure safeguards that this was going to find work. They have not done so. They come before us simply with a hotchpotch and a hash-up of what was given to the previous House by the previous Government. It is stretching our loyalty to the party too far to invite us to vote for the addition of another £3,500,000 to this gang of Sudanese, who are exploiting the credit of this country for their own purposes. If we are to carry on this jobbery any longer I say, frankly, that it is inviting us to stretch our loyalty too far to support this project, more particularly after the opposition which we took up when we were sitting on the benches opposite. If a Division is called to protest against the giving of any further guarantee of money to the Sudanese Government I shall cheerfully go into the Lobby, knowing that I can explain my vote and stand by it on any platform in the country.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: An hon. Friend opposite deprecated the raising of the grant from £50,000,000 to £65,000,000. I am heartily in favour of £65,000,000 for trade facilities for the purposes in view, namely, the improvement of trade and the diminishing of unemployment, but as one who has been engaged for a quarter of a century in shipping, I must associate myself with the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) and others who have spoken against the subsidising of shipping. I do so, although I am interested in that industry, because I am conscious of the fact that this will not increase trade and employment and that it will do no good to the shipping industry. I hold in my hand the prospectus which was issued by the Bank Line for £1,800,000 5 per cent. debenture shares, guaranteed by the British Government. Although guaranteed by the British Government, there is an agreement in existence dated the 18th February, 1924, between the company of Andrew Weir and Company, of which company Lord Inverforth is the chairman, and Messrs. Mullens, Marshall, Steer, Lawford and Company to underwrite the issue for seven-eighths per cent. I fail to see what is the good of a guarantee by the British Government if at the same time this issue is to be underwritten.
The fact of the matter is that a five per cent. debenture issue in shipping would not be underwritten without a Government guarantee.
8.0 P.M.
In the first place, the security is not there. When a ship takes the water, however good that ship may be, there is an immediate depreciation of about 20 per cent. Therefore, I very much doubt the security which this debenture issue has to start with, and I am sorry to say that, in my opinion, it casts a reflection upon the advisers of the Overseas Department. I understand that there are three of them. I have no doubt that they are men of honour; one is a director of the Bank of England, and another is a very eminent auditor, Sir William Plender. But what do these men know about shipping. I doubt very much whether they know anything about shipping. For instance, a condition attached to the advancing of money to a shipping company is that the steamers to be built must have Diesel engines. If a steamer has a triple-expansion engine there would be no money advanced by the Government. One hon. Member quoted Sir A. Anderson, a shipping expert, who was associated with the Coalition Government in connection with the Ministry of Shipping, and he has condemned it because the Diesel engine is not yet a success; it is in the experimental stage. Steamers with this make of engine are to be found breaking down on the ocean highways continually, and here you have £1,800,000 guaranteed by the British Government on steamers that must have Diesel engines. That is a very serious matter. Here we have a spectacle of tens of thousands of tons of shipping laid up in all parts of the world. Many of those boats built during recent years have cost fabulous sums, £60 and £70 of ton dead-weight. Here you have those boats choking the harbours of the world, many of them with Diesel engines, boats that may be considered quite up-to-date, and here you have the Government subsidising the Bank Line, and incidentally Harland and Wolff, to build a dozen more ships of the same kind. As one who knows something about shipping, I protest in the name of the ratepayers in this country against what I consider gross extravagance and the bad advice given to the Department. I would suggest, if I am
in order, that when public money is to be expended on this scale—I agree that it is necessary, and I agree with this Bill; it is necessary if judiciously spent—the Government ought to be advised by experts who are approved by this House. Who had the appointment of those two gentlemen? I take it the President of the Board of Trade. I submit that when vast sums like this are to be spent, the men who are to advise the Ministry ought to be men who have the confidence and approval of the House of Commons. There are many ways in which this money could be spent to better advantage. What are you doing for the greatest industry of the country—agriculture?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am very reluctant to interrupt my hon. Friend, but surely he is under a misapprehension. There is not one penny of public money in this at all. It is merely a guarantee. The responsibility rests on the firm of saying whether it will undertake the work, and if it indicates that, then the responsibility does not fall on the Government.

Sir R. THOMAS: I think my hon. Friend is wrong. If anything goes wrong, the prospectus is quite clear upon the point that the Government are responsible. Otherwise, what is the good of the guarantee? Any depreciation in this stock is a matter for the Government, and, as I clearly pointed out, there is immediate depreciation, as soon as these ships take the water, of about 20 per cent., and for anything that goes wrong with this issue the Government are responsible. There is no getting away from that. The Government should be very careful who their advisers are.

Mr. GRAHAM: On that point I would like to say that we must leave this to an Advisory Committee. They get all the facts and look to all the circumstances. I would also say that, out of a total amount of about £38,000,000 guaranteed, this country has been called upon to pay only one small sum of £4,000.

Sir R. THOMAS: It is too soon. The injudiciousness and folly of making advances on these ships will be only discovered a few years hence, when perhaps a Liberal Government will be in power. I thoroughly agree with advancing money to facilitating trade and
diminishing unemployment; but it should be done in our own country. I am really surprised that my hon. and learned Friend has not done more for agriculture. He has done nothing yet to help the agricultural labourer, for whom he has spoken most sympathetic words. I suggested to him on a previous occasion that he might do something for credit banks. The trouble to-day is that the farmer has not the money to carry on the work on business lines, and that affects the farm labourer. I suggest that before he advances money on very unsafe things, such as these shipping debentures, he should consider something much safer and nearer at home.

Mr. REMER: I do not propose to follow the hon. Baronet in the speech he has just made, because a great deal of it was on technical detail's, on which I am not competent to follow, but I think he has missed one material point, namely, that the issue in question is guaranteed personally by the partners, and they are well able to look after their own business. Neither do I propose to follow the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) in the fraternal quarrel amongst comrades, which we have listened to this evening with reference to the Sudan. I will say, that if he represented a constituency anywhere in the region of Manchester he would not have made that violent attack which he has made this evening. It is quite easy to point out that the cotton supply from the Sudan is very small, but the prospective supply will, I think, in the next few years very materially increase beyond the 70,000 bales to a figure which will enable Lancashire to be independent of America. I am quite sure, from observations I have heard from a large number of Lancashire people, that the only hope of their cotton trade is to secure a large and increasing supply of cotton.
There is something that is even more important than the supply, and that is the quality of the cotton. I am told that the quality of the Sudan cotton is higher than that produced in any other part of the world. It is rather in improving the quality of the cotton supplied in Lancashire than by any other means that we are to secure the trade of producing cotton for the world. I believe the only thing that is keeping what small proportion of that trade remains in existence
is the fact that our Lancashire goods are better in quality than those produced in any other part of the world. In supporting this proposal for cotton-growing in the Sudan. We are going further than we can by any other means to achieve that object. There has been a great deal said in the course of this Debate about keeping the supply of cotton for this country. Anyone who knows the City of Liverpool, where the great Cotton Exchange operates, and who goes to see the cotton merchants selling their cotton not only to this country but to the whole world, will realise that it would be a great mistake if there were any dictation to them as to whether it shall be sold to any particular

part of the world. The result would be that we should lose a great deal of our valuable entrepot trade. It would be a profound mistake if we dictated that that cotton must come to this country. I give this Bill my blessing. I believe it is the foundation by which we can secure increased trade, and those people who are advising can safely be trusted to give every consideration to every scheme. For those reasons, as far as I am concerned, I will have no hesitation in voting for the Second Reading of the Bill.

Question put: "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 297; Noes, 43.

Division No. 14.]
AYES.
[8.13 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Deans, Richard Storry
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Dickie, Captain J. P.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dixey, A. C.
Hillary, A. E.


Alden, Percy
Duckworth, John
Hindle, F.


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hirst, G. H.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Dukes, C.
Hobhouse, A. L.


Alstead, R.
Duncan, C.
Hodges, Frank


Ammon, Charles George
Dunnico, H.
Hogbin, Henry Cairns


Aske, Sir Robert William
Ednam, Viscount
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Atholl, Duchess of
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)


Baker, W. J.
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Hudson, J. H.


Banton, G.
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Barclay, R. Noton
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Barnes, A.
Finney, V. H.
Isaacs, G. A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Forestier-Walker, L.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Becker, Harry
Franklin, L. B.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jephcott, A. R.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)


Betterton, Henry B.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Black, J. W.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Bondfield, Margaret
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Bonwick, A.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)


Broad, F. A.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Kay, Sir R. Newbald


Bromfield, William
Gillett, George M.
Keens, T.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lamb, J. Q.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gosling, Harry
Lane-Fox, George R.


Buckle, J.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Laverack, F. J.


Burman, J. B.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Law, A.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Greenall, T.
Lawson, John James


Caine, Gordon Hall
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Leach, W.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lee, F.


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Livingstone, A. M.


Cassels, J. D.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Chapman, Sir S.
Gring, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Grundy, T. W.
Lorimer, H. D.


Clarke, A.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Loverseed, J. F.


Clayton, G. C.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Lowth, T.


Climie, R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Lumley, L. R.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Harbison, Thomas James S.
Lunn, William


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Harbord, Arthur
McCrae, Sir George


Cope, Major William
Harland, A.
MacDonald, R.


Costello, L. W. J.
Harris, John (Hackney, North)
M'Entee, V. L.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Harris, Percy A.
McLean, Major A.


Cove, W. G.
Hartington, Marquess of
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Page
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Maden, H.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hastings, Sir. Patrick
Mansel, Sir Courtenay


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hayday, Arthur
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hayes, John Henry
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Meller, R. J.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)
Middleton, G.


Millar, J. D.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Mills, J. E.
Ropner, Major L.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Mond, H.
Royce, William Stapleton
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)
Tillett, Eenjamin


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tinker, John Joseph


Morse, W. E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth. Putney)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Moulton, Major Fletcher
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Tout, W. J.


Muir, John W.
Savery, S. S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)
Sexton, James
Turner-Samuels, M.


Murrell, Frank
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Sherwood, George Henry
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shinwell, Emanuel
Viant, S. P.


O'Grady, Captain James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Vivian, H.


O'Neill, John Joseph
Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Paling, W.
Simpson, J. Hope
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Palmer, E. T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Sitch, Charles H.
Warne, G. H.


Penny, Frederick George
Smillie, Robert
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D (Rhondda)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Perring, William George
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Perry, S. F.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Weir, L. M.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith-Carrington, Neville W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Phillipps, Vivian
Snell, Harry
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Pilkington, R. R.
Spence, R.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Stamford, T. W.
Wignall, James


Potts, John S.
Stanley, Lord
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Pringle, W. M. R.
Starmer, Sir Charles
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Raffan, P. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)


Raffety, F. W.
Stranger, Innes Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Raine, W.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Rankin, James S.
Sullivan, J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rathbone, Hugh R.
Sutcliffe, T.
Wintringham, Margaret


Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Wise, Sir Fredric


Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Sutton, J. E.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Rea, W. Russell
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Remer, J. R.
Tattersall, J. L.
Wragg, Herbert


Rendall, A.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Rentoul, G. S.
Terrington, Lady
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)



Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Robertson, T. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr.


Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Thomoson, Piers G. (Torquay)
Parkinson.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Ayles, W. H.
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Batey, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Turner, Ben


Compton, Joseph
Linfield, F. C.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Crittall, V. G.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Darbishire, C. W.
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Welsh, J. C.


Dickson, T.
Montague, Frederick
Westwood, J.


Foot, Isaac
Murray, Robert
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Nichol, Robert
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Haycock, A. W.
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
S[...]rymgeour, E.



Hoffman, P. C.
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Mr. T. Johnston and Mr. Maxton.


Jewson, Dorothea

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. R. MORRISON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I regret exceedingly the necessity for interrupting the ordinary business of the House by moving this Amendment. Secondly, I regret very much that it should have fallen to my lot to do so. I say that because I am connected, though only in a minor capacity, with the Ministry of Transport. I would much have preferred to have taken an entirely
neutral attitude on the Bill. Those who were in the last Parliament will remember that I moved in that Parliament a Motion similar to this, and since then, so far from the London and North Eastern Railway Company having taken any steps to overcome the difficulty about which we complained, things have become considerably worse, and I have no option but to take the course that I am taking to-night. This is an omnibus Bill conferring various powers. I suggest that before passing the Second Reading this House ought to be satisfied that the powers already possessed by the company are not being used against the public interest. I want to put the case against the company as we in North London understand it.
For many years the whole of the residents in North London, representing a population of, roughly, 500,000 people, have been hampered in their business and in every way by inadequate travelling facilities. We have a population that is rapidly increasing, and housing schemes that are in progress are making matters worse day by day. During the lifetime of the last Parliament, the Minister of Transport received two deputations representing all the local authorities in North London. In addition to that a petition, signed by no fewer than 30,000 people, was presented to the Minister, and an appeal was made to the Metropolitan Railway Company, who appeared to be favourably disposed towards the construction of a tube railway north of Finsbury Park. When the agitation had reached that stage it was discovered that the difficulty in the way was a Section which appears in an Act of Parliament passed by this House 22 years ago. I propose to read that Section for the benefit of Members who were not in the last Parliament. The Section is contained in the Great Northern Railway (No. 2) Act, 1902, and is as follows:
The City Company shall not, without the consent of the company, construct or seek power to construct or aid in, consent to, or acquiesce in the construction by any other body or company of any railway to the north of the prescribed line, and should any such railway be constructed by any other body or company, the City Company shall not, without the like consent, enter into any arrangement for or promote the running of trains or carriages to, from, or over such railway, from, to, or over the railway station or any part thereof, provided always that the foregoing provision shall not be taken
to preclude the City Company from extending the railway by this Act in any direction, so long as it is not extended to the north of the prescribed line.
That is why it is necessary for us to take action to-night. The London and North Eastern Railway Company say that no one wants to construct a tube north of Finsbury Park, and, if they did, that Section would not stop them from doing so. My reply is that if that is not the object of the Section—it could have no other—why should the company not remove it? This is the second discussion that this House has had upon this Section, and I tell the company now that unless we are successful to-night, it will not be the last. Last year, the company had four representatives who took part in the Debate. I am pleased to say that the most formidable of the quartette has now gone to another place. The main arguments that the representatives of the company put forward last June were two. First, that the London and North Eastern Company had only been in existence for six months, and had not had time fully to consider the position They cannot put forward that excuse to-night. The second excuse was that I and those associated with me were trying to wreck a Bill that would provide employment. The answer to that is that it is not true.
All that we ask is that in the interests of the public the power obtained 22 years ago by something that looks very much like sharp practice, should be abrogated. I know that that is a strong phrase to use, and I will state why I use it. Twenty-two years ago, when the Great Northern Railway (No. 2) Act was introduced into this House, the Section I have read was not in the Bill. The Bill passed its Second Reading in this House and went to another place, and the Section was not in it then. While the Bill was in another place, at the instigation of a nominee of the railway company, the Section was put into the Bill. I am, therefore, justified in describing it as sharp practice. Then we say that if the company are right in their contention that this Section is of no importance, and that it is not hindering the construction of a tube railway in North London, what is the objection to the company removing it? Let me quote from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Transport, who took part in the Debate on 14th June of last year. He said:
I fully admit that hon. Members who represent those districts in the North of London have serious cause for complaint. The travelling facilities (there) are deplorable. I have been there myself.… Conditions exist there which ought not to exist, which I think hon. Members are quite right in pressing upon this House.… as strongly as they possibly can, and which ought to be put right at the earliest possible moment.… I admit again.… that you want either electrification or new railways or both in that locality.… to serve the teeming scores of thousands of people who live there and have, old and young, weak and strong, to go in every day to their work under these unfortunate conditions. I have been in fairly constant touch with the London and North Eastern Company.… They are investigating the problem.… in conjunction with the Metropolitan. I take that to mean that they are now considering what, if anything, can be done to get a Tube extension.… to the affected areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1923; cols 848–9, Vol. 165.]
I had hoped that the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport would have been in his place to-night. I trust that those who voted with him to give last year's Bill a Second Reading, will seriously consider whether the time has now come to adopt the only effective method of making this company realise that they are not to be allowed to play with this House and the public any longer. Since last June the conditions have become considerably worse. The feeling of resentment against the company has grown to an extent of which the company, I am sure, has no conception. People outside are asking repeatedly why this House should continue to grant powers to a company which puts dividends first and the welfare of the public last.
This is not a matter of party politics. The discussion which I am initiating to-night will prove that before the Debate is over. I and those associated with me I have not entered upon this Debate lightheartedly or without doing everything possible to avoid it. Only a fortnight ago we spent two hours with the general manager of the company at King's Cross Station, and he refused to budge from the position that the company has taken up. Last Monday the same group, representing North London constituents, spent two hours with Lord Ashfield, and asked him why we in North London, with our
teeming population, had been neglected in his schemes of tube extension while comparatively unpopulated districts have been served. The report of that deputation will probably be published to-morrow, and I hope hon. Members will read it. If they do, they will understand why we came away both from the interview with Mr. Wedgwood, the general manager of the London and North Eastern Railway Company, and from the interview with Lord Ashfield, more than ever convinced that in fastening upon this Section we have our finger on the spot.
The company has sent to every Member of this House a statement of reasons why a Second Reading should be given to the Bill. They say that the Bill will be the means of affording employment to a considerable number of persons. I agree, but if the company will waive the Section which we are asking them to waive, and which they say is not of any particular consequence, the employment will not be confined to the schemes embodied in this Bill, but will extend to a great many more. They also say in their statement that the opposition to the Bill is in regard to matters to which the present Bill does not relate. I entirely agree, but, as was pointed out last year, the only means which Members have of raising matters of this kind is to tackle private Railway Bills when they come before the House. No other method is open to us by which we can bring effective pressure to bear. We have tried other methods, and the London and North Eastern Railway Company have treated us with contempt. They further say in their statement that this Clause confirms part of an arrangement made between the Great Northern Railway Company and the Great Northern and City Railway Company. Has it come to this, that a bargain made 22 years ago between two railway companies neither of which now exists, made whilst the public was not looking, is to be used to deprive half a million people of reasonable travelling facilities for all eternity? Thousands of people are spending four hours of every working day of their lives in getting to and from business because of this bargain. It may be urged that omnibuses have been put on, but we find that as omnibuses are put on more and more, the journey take; longer and longer, because of the increased congestion in the streets.
I heard recently of a case which may startle the House. There are two men working in an office not a stone's throw from this House, one of whom lives in Brighton while the other lives in Tottenham. They leave work at the same time each day and the man who lives at Brighton reaches home before the man who lives at Tottenham. The company say in the statement they have issued that no consent to construct a tube railway has been asked for, and that, therefore, it cannot be argued that the Section prevented this being done. I have already explained to the House why steps have not been taken to construct a tube railway. The Section not only says that no company shall construct a rube railway, but it also says that no company shall take any powers or take any steps towards constructing one. The inference which the company try to make out is that this Section is of no importance. There is a simple and straightforward reply to that proposition. If, in the opinion of the company, the Section is of no consequence, and if we are on a wild-goose chase in thinking that it is, why should the company hold on to it so tenaciously? Has it a cash value? We ought to know, because, if it has, the public would be called upon to pay. I will ask hon. Members to look at a map of London which shows the tube railways existing just now. Immediately you will be struck by the extraordinary fact that a tremendous part of Greater London, north of Finsbury Park, has no tube railway of any description. That will lead you to seek for an explanation and your mind will revolve around this proposition: How comes it that tube railways have been constructed in comparatively unpopulated parts of London, while places like North London with its teeming scores of thousands have been neglected? The answer is, because of the Section to which we object. There is no other explanation.
Again, it is said in the statement, which has been issued to Members, that it would be unfair to deprive the company of this Section. I am sure no one in this House desires to be unfair to the London and North Eastern Railway Company, but what about fair play to the public? The business of this House is primarily to protect the public and see that they get fair play. I have already said this is not a matter of party
politics. It concerns half a million people, irrespective of party—the whole of North London—Tottenham, Wood Green, Edmonton, Finchley, Barnet, Southgate and many other districts—and all the local authorities are solidly united, and men of all parties, and men of none, are agreed upon the urgency of better travelling facilities. For these reasons I hope none of the representatives of the companies here will imagine that we are not in earnest on this matter. Last June, after three hours' Debate, a Motion, "That the Question be now put," was carried by a majority of 93, and I am convinced that that majority was only obtained by the appeal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. He appealed to the House to give the then Bill a Second Reading, because he felt sure that the company was going into the matter seriously and would take immediate steps. I have read an extract from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech on that occasion which conveys that impression, and I feel certain that is the only reason why the Closure Motion was carried. I would also remind representatives of the company that many changes have taken place in this House since last June, and there is a largely increased number of Members in the present Parliament who are not prepared to go on conferring new powers on railway companies, while the powers which those companies already possess are being used against the public. We ask for a simple guarantee that the company will waive this prohibitive Section which we claim ought never to have been obtained. It is a perfectly reasonable request, and if it is not acceded to, the responsibility for the defeat of this Bill will rest entirely on the London and North Eastern Railway Company.

Captain Viscount EDNAM: I beg to second the Amendment. I want to agree most heartily with everything that has been said by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison). I am not going to take up time by describing in detail the hopelessly inadequate and scandalously inefficient conditions of travel that exist in the large residential area in the North of London at present served by the London and North Eastern Railway. This area might well be
described as the dormitory of London. Practically the whole of the population of that area, men and women, have to go backwards and forwards every day of their lives to the business centres to earn their livelihood. Let it be sufficient for me to say, as the hon. Member for North Tottenham said, that these conditions were described last June by the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) as deplorable, conditions which should be put right at the earliest possible moment. I myself would not describe those conditions in such moderate terms; I would describe them as scandalous. It is a scandalous thing that travelling facilities such as those should exist in the premier city of the world, and I am confident that hon. and right hon. Members of this House, if they would take the trouble to go down to Finsbury Park Station at 6 o'clock on a wet evening, on any wet evening they like, would readily agree with what I have said.
Why is it that these conditions exist? They exist because the old Great Northern Railway Company wangled into their 1902 Bill an obnoxious Clause which reserves for them the whole of that area as a sort of Tom Tiddler's ground. It gives them a monopoly of the travelling facilities in the whole of that district, and nobody else is allowed to compete. I submit that the principle that a railway company should have a monopoly of this sort is a wrong one. The London and North Eastern Railway Company cannot possibly cope, under present conditions, with the travelling requirements of that vast area, and, mark you, it is rapidly increasing every year. They admit that they cannot and they never have been, and never will be able to. Well, if they cannot cope with it, they ought to clear out and let the tubes help them. Like the hon. Member who preceded me, I appeal to the House: Is it fair that that population in that district of London should suffer, as they have suffered for the last 20 years, should suffer for all time, for this obnoxious agreement which was come to between two companies, neither of which if any longer in existence—this dog-in-the-manger agreement? I say that it is not, and I should like to tell the promoters of this Bill that the population
in that district of London are not going to put up with this state of affairs. They have suffered it long enough.
The agitation of those people has reached such enormous proportions that it is going to be impossible for the London and North Eastern Railway Company to stand up against the public opinion in that area any longer, and I submit to them that it would be wiser for them to grant us what we are asking now and not to wait until they are forced to give it. All the Members of this House of all political parties, all the local authorities interested, and every single society, organisation, and association in that part of London, are unanimous in their determination that this obnoxious section shall be removed. The business population in that part of London look upon this question as a more important question to them than any housing, rating, or any other question, and it is only natural, because who can say what the saving of even half an hour in the business man's daily travel represents to him in cash alone? The hon. Member for North Tottenham pointed out that a man who went to Brighton got home quicker than a man who went to North Tottenham. If that man in North Tottenham is going to save even half an hour of his daily travel to and from the City, it is going to be of enormous value to him.
In the old days of the Great Northern Railway Company, when the late Member for the City of London, now Lord Banbury, a man for whom, I might say. I have the deepest admiration and respect, was chairman of that company, of course it was quite hopeless to think that we should ever get any scheme of up-to-date travel, for he looked upon any electrification scheme with unmitigated horror. It was always amazing to me that he should ever have undertaken to be chairman of such a new-fangled contraption as a railway, even though I admit it was only a very primitive sort of railway. It seemed to me that he would have been more at home, and certainly more picturesque, driving the London to Brighton coach.

Mr. LANSBURY: You wanted him to break his neck!

Viscount EDNAM: I do not wish to be disrespectful to Lord Banbury. The hon. Member for North Tottenham said he was glad he had left this House and
gone to another place. I myself am sorry, because what he said last year in this Debate gave great strength to our case, and I may say that the insults which he heaped upon my constituents on that occasion did mc a great deal of good. When this question came up in this House last June the representatives of the present board of the London and North Eastern Railway Company told us that the amalgamation had only taken place six months previously, and that they had not yet had time to look into an electrification scheme, and they appealed to us to give them more time to draw up a plan of that sort. They have had that time now, and I hope that when the representatives of the company come to reply this evening they will be able to tell us that such a scheme is well in hand, although I have not much hope that they will be able to give us very much information, because at the deputation to which the hon. Member who preceded me referred we were told by Mr. Wedgwood that very little had been done, that their tenders had been sent out, but that they had not got on with the job quite as well as we hoped they would have done in a year. An electrification scheme of the London and North Eastern Railway will undoubtedly relieve the congestion in that part of London, but it is not going to solve the problem.
This is our point, and I want to emphasise it with all the strength at my disposal: The electrification scheme of the London and North Eastern Railway Company is not going to solve the problem. The problem is not going to be solved until the public have got the electrified line of the London and North Eastern Railway Company, and the extension of the Tubes, and the omnibuses, and the tramways. The London and North Eastern Railway Company cannot serve that area. They never will be able to serve that area, and hon. Members in this House have only to look at the map of London to see the truth of that statement and to see how urgently the extension of tubes from Highgate and Finsbury Park is required. It is a very much more urgent problem than was the extension of the Tube from Golders Green, and it is going to serve a very much more densely populated area. When we went with this deputation to the railway company a fort-
night ago, we were told by the general manager: "This section has nothing to do with your arguments, because the Underground Company have never come to us with any sort of scheme for the extension of their tubes." I would like to point out that in the statement that has been sent round by the railway company they say: "No such consent has been asked for, and it cannot, therefore, be said that the section has in fact prevented any extension north." Of course, that is all moonshine, because the section says that no other company may seek powers to extend in that area. Therefore, they would be quite illegal in putting forward any scheme for any extension of their tubes. Mr. Wedgwood also implied—he certainly did not say so—that the Underground Group—Lord Ashfield's Group—were taking advantage of this section, that they had no intention of extending their tubes, or of extending the commitments which they had already undertaken, and that they were, in fact, sheltering behind this section. As I say, he did not say so, but that was the impression he gave to the 8 or 10 members of that deputation. That may be so. I do not believe it is true, because I have never met a more public-spirited man, a man who is more anxious to give the public what it should have in the way of travelling facilities, a man who appeared to me more capable of handling the complicated problem of London traffic generally than Lord Ashfield.
But, supposing it were true that Lord Ashfield, and the Underground Group, were sheltering behind this Section, is that not all the more reason for its repeal, in order that the Underground authorities might not avoid their service to the public? Lord Ashfield, I think I am right in saying—and I think hon. Members who were with me on the deputation will back me up in saying—said quite frankly that had it not been for this Section the tubes to Finsbury Park and Highgate would have been extended years ago. I frankly say he told us he did not think it would be possible for the Underground Company, even though they had power, to extend the tube at this particular moment, until the whole problem of London traffic generally had been cleared up. I very much hope that this problem is going to be cleared up by the Bill which, I understand, is
shortly going to be introduced by the Government. At any rate, he promised, in conjunction with all the local authorities interested, to formulate immediately a plan for the extension of the tubes from Finsbury Park and High-gate to be put in hand at the earliest possible moment. The anomaly of that is, that he is not legally entitled under this Section to do that. Of course, he would have to get the consent of the London and North-Eastern Railway Company, but he is not legally entitled to do it, and even if they do draw up some plan for the extension of these tubes, the London and North-Eastern Railway Company can—and I am sure they will—say that they will have nothing to do with that extension scheme, and it will all be so much wasted effort. I think I am right in saying that the thing is such a farce that, Lord Ashfield had to ask the consent of the general manager of the London and North-Eastern Railway Company before he could receive us as a deputation.
9.0 P.M.
This is, I admit, a local matter, but it is a vital matter to us, and I do want to appeal to hon. Members in this House of all parties for their sympathy and for their support. Particularly, I would like to appeal to my own party. It is very unfortunate that, owing to the terrible onslaught of hon. Members opposite at the last Election, I am about the only surviving Member from that part of London on this side of the House. But our turn will come later. What we want is for the railway company to accept in principle the second Amendment which is being moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham, that they will, on the Committee stage of this Bill, insert a Clause to repeal the section in the 1902 Act, which is the root of the whole problem. I want to repeat; that we do not want to reject this Bill. We feel certain it is full of the most valuable and urgent schemes for development, and for extensions of the London and North Eastern Railway, but the House must realise that this is our only weapon for getting what we want. If the London and North Eastern Railway Company grant us what we want—and I very much hope that they will—we will uphold this Bill to the fullest extent of our power. If they refuse to do so, then we shall
do our utmost to defeat it, and I believe we have got a large amount of sympathy in all parts of the House. What is more, if they do refuse, I should like to tell them here and now, that we are going to block every Bill they introduce in this House at every stage, until we have got rid of this most iniquitous section.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: This line serves my constituency, and I was asked, when this Bill was brought forward, to allow, my name to be put on the back of it. I confess at the time I took that step, I rather thought that my duties would be confined to seeing my name in print on the back of the Bill, but I found there was considerable opposition to the Bill, and, in the circumstances, I did, of course, what every Member of the House would do. I devoted a great deal of time and care to mastering the details of the Bill, seeing all the officials of the company who could instruct me on the subject, and I am quite sure I shall have the courtesy and toleration of the House while, on their behalf, I lay before the House the reasons for the Bill, which reasons, I suggest, make it deserving of support. First of all, there appears to be very considerable misapprehension as to the way in which this Section got into the Act of 1902. The position of affairs at that time was this. A tube railway had been authorised, and was partly constructed, but the promoters of the scheme had not any more cash to spend and the thing was hung up, and could not be completed. For 10 years the scheme to construct a tube railway to Finsbury Park station had been in abeyance, and in this crisis, with the tube partly constructed, and the daily needs of the locality growing, the people with this derelict tube turned to the Great Northern Railway Company and asked for help. Consequently, there was introduced the Bill of 1902, which, in the Preamble, sets out the facts I have indicated, namely, that this railway, as to the latter part of it, had been abandoned, and the Great Northern Railway Company were put under terms to find the capital for the continuation of the line. They were put under very drastic terms indeed, because Sub-section (13) of Section 36, which is the Section that has been designated by the hon. Member, who so ably and eloquently moved the rejection, as a piece of sharp practice—and the Act contains many
other Sections—sets out the terms which were imposed upon the Great Northern Railway Company. It must not be forgotten that they were providing the capital. They had to make the issue for the purpose of obtaining the money for those who were building the tube, and hoped to make it successful. The terms put upon the Great Northern Railway Company are set out in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 36:
Within six months of the completion of the tube the Great Northern Railway Company has to lease the land and the railway to the Tube Railway Company and the latter has to pay as rent such an annual sum as shall be equal to the whole of the interest which would be payable in that year on the aggregate amount of the Great Northern Three per cent. Preference Stock which the company shall from time to time issue for the purpose of raising money.
It sets out the purposes to which the money is to be devoted, and it goes on:
The aggregate amount of the interest which shall accrue on the Great Northern Three per cent. Preference Stock from time to time issued by the company for the foregoing purposes or any other.…
The terms of Parliament to the Great Northern Railway Company were that they were to make no profit out of the transaction. They were to come forward and help this line—which was hung up—and they were only to get in return the actual interest which they had to pay to subscribers of the amount subscribed. These were very drastic terms. Very naturally the Great Northern Railway Company said, in view of these terms, if we have got to do that, if you are going to put us under these terms, at any rate it shall be made clear that we are not going to carry this derelict tube as far as Finsbury Park, and leave others to construct an independent tube to the north to compete with the railway. The Company, and the Government, thought that was just; and I do not think that any hon. Member will think otherwise, and that was why this Clause was inserted. I really think the Noble Lord (Viscount Ednam), who has just spoken so eloquently and forcibly, has perhaps not given some of these particulars as close attention as he might have done, because the only purpose involved in this Section is what I have stated. It so happens that the Tube Railway Company has now got a new name. The Great Northern is merged in the London and
North Eastern Railway Company and the Tube Construction Company has become the Metropolitan. All, however, that the Section says is that the City Company, which is now the Metropolitan Railway Company, shall not, without the consent of the larger company, construct or enter into, or consent, or acquiesce in, construction by any other body or company to the north of the prescribed line. Then it goes on to say that if any other third party does put in a tube the Metropolitan Railway Company are not to grant powers of working it. The House will perhaps allow me to point out that, considered in the surrounding circumstances, it is idle to criticise that. It was a bargain made between these two companies, and at the time it was considered very fair. May I point out that this is a prohibition only against the Metropolitan Railway Company. It is a bargain between these two parties, these people constructing the Tube, and the people finding the capital for the construction, and it goes no further. There is nothing in this Section to prevent any person, if he thinks it is a remunerative enterprise, constructing a Tube Railway Station to the north of Finsbury Park. Hon. Members might say, and with great justice, that it is no good constructing a tube in the air. It would have to take a connection at Finsbury Park. Of course it would. For the construction of a tube an Act of Parliament would be required, and in that Act of Parliament any sane man would put powers to make the connection with the existing tube at Finsbury Park. It is idle to say that this prohibition is against all comers. It is nothing of the kind. Correspondence has passed between Lord Ashfield and certain earnest Members of this House, and they have seen him with a view to persuading him to undertake the construction of the new tube. In courtesy to the Great Northern he naturally communicated with them. He knows of the existence of the Act. It is instructive to read the letters which passed between him and the Great Northern Railway Company. In the last letter that the London and North Eastern Railway Company sent in answer they said:
Dear Lord Ashfield,
I note that you have been asked to receive a deputation upon the question of extending the tube facilities in North London. I anticipated that you would re-
ceive such a request, as I had previously seen a deputation headed by Lord Ednam. I told them that if you were prepared to put up a scheme for tube extensions north of Finsbury Park we should be perfectly prepared to give it fair consideration. I can have no objection at all to your receiving the deputation.
Does it not come to this, hon. Members want a tube. If I may say so, I do not wonder at it. We all know the needs of suburban London. But there is nothing in this Section—and I desire to emphasise to the House—to render illegal the construction of any tube except one by the Metropolitan Railway Company. They have not asked for leave. They have not approached the London and North-Eastern Railway Company upon the subject at all, but if anybody else comes with a scheme of that kind, I am quite sure it will receive sympathetic consideration from the London and North-Eastern Railway Company for, after all, if passengers require to get beyond Finsbury Park, probably the London and North-Eastern will carry them the greater part of the way. Human nature being what it is, you may be perfectly sure that if a railway company can cater for a remunerative passenger traffic of this kind they will do so. I have, as I hope, established that fact and made it clear. Let me pass to what is, I think, the other ground of complaint. First of all, you may take it that no one concerned, least of all the railway company, is so stupid as to under-estimate the difficulties, inconveniences, and discomforts of those living in suburban London. I cannot help thinking, however, that when this section was inserted in the Act of 1892, the large increase of suburban traffic must have been foreseen, and, therefore, Parliament must have had in view that the circumstances might now be as they are. However, that may be, nobody who travels in London can dispute for an instant what has been told by the two hon. Members. Just consider what the difficulties of this line are. I suppose there is no railway more burdened with this problem than is the London and North Eastern Railway Company. King's Cross, Liverpool Street, Broad Street, through trains from Moorgate Street, all go out to the most densely- and thickly-populated part of London. A vast population at least half of which all desire to
be carried to London at the same time, and desire to be brought back at the same time. Electrification and difficulties of railway management, as I shall show the House, are not an easy problem. One of the chief difficulties of the London and North Eastern Railway Company, which this Bill is designed to put right and a step towards electrification, is that at two or three places where the trains enter the London stations these suburban trains have to cross on the level the main line, a very old-fashioned, clumsy, and I should have thought a rather dangerous arrangement.
If you look at Clause 8 of this Bill you will find there three provisions, and one of the objects is the widening and the alteration of the company's line between Liverpool Street and Stratford. There is also a similar alteration in Stepney and another between Fenchurch Street and Stratford. The cost of those three alterations is £1,500,000. What is the object of this? Simply to provide a bridge to go over the existing main line railways so that the suburban traffic can get into the stations without being constantly held up by the main line trains coming in and out. I believe they call these lines, in railway parlance, "flyover" lines. Some people call them flying bridges, and that is, apparently, the phraseology of the railway world.
The main question, however, is, how is this suburban traffic to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible? In the last Debate in this House the question turned largely upon the electrification of the line. That is a very easy thing to talk about, but when you come to tackle the problem in all its minutæ, it is very difficult to deal with. What has been done in this connection? In June last, after the discussion took place in the House, an expert Committee was appointed to consider this question. Please remember we are not only dealing with Finsbury, but, in fact, we are dealing with all parts of the suburbs served by this line.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Finsbury is miles away from that area?

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: That is so, but I mean Finsbury Park. The first thing we had to do was to get an estimate in order that we might have some idea what the work was going to cost, and
three of the largest and most important firms engaged in this class of work were asked to send in estimates, and each of them refused upon the ground that under present conditions the work was larger than they could undertake, and they asked leave to combine and give a combined estimate. These firms are now considering that question, and although no specification has been taken out, the rough sort of estimate that has been given shows that the electrification of the line will cost round about £5,000,000.
When you have got from these firms the estimate, the next thing you have to do is to get quotations for the supply of electric current, and those have been obtained. You have also to get estimates for your high cable transmission, and those estimates are being obtained. You have to completely re-arrange all your signalling apparatus. You must have sub-stations for the distribution of electricity, and you have to get estimates for all these things. When it is remembered that this company only came into existence in January, 1923, and has taken over the burdens of the existing companies, and has to deal with the extraordinary increase in suburban traffic since the War, I think that any business man will be inclined to allow the company time to get out all these estimates and come to the necessary conclusion. I think I am authorised to say that this company will be prepared, within a certain space of time, which will be laid before the House, either to take immediate steps to put into operation and begin the electrification of the line, or to abrogate this Section altogether in order that the Metropolitan Railway may come in and construct the tube. I am not an officer of the company, but I have no doubt that is the view of this railway company at the present time.
In conclusion, I want to say that I do not want the House to run away with the idea that this railway company is treating the community with disrespect. They would be very foolish if they did so, because the community are their customers, and no man who is not an idiot treats his customers with anything but respect. They are only too anxious to cater for the public if it can be done on reasonable commercial lines. I am informed that a short time ago they spent £100,000 on providing eight new trains,
and these will be working very shortly. I want the House to quite understand this, that no electrification of these lines will be any good or give any improved service, or give more trains unless you can first pass the Clauses in this Bill which enable them to get over the structural difficulty. It is essential. You might electrify the lines to-morrow, but as long as you have to cross the main lines, as those suburban trains do now, you would have a stream of electric trains waiting to get over instead of a stream of steam trains.
May I point out what the real purport of this Act of Parliament is? Do hon. Members really think that if they carry their eloquence and enthusiasm and their very proper sympathy with the suburbs in regard to the conditions of traffic, to the point of refusing a Second Reading to this Bill, would they be any better off than they are at present? Much worse off. The existing prohibition will remain. The Sections in the Act of 1902 will remain. None of those things that are an absolute necessity before electrification can be put into operation will be met. You are postponing electrification to the Greek Kalends, and you will be worse off than you are now. I have read Clause 8, which for the purpose of electrification I regard as most essential. Hon. Members, I am sure, will not forget that the railway company is not like a builder or contractor who has a staff of men to carry out work of this kind. All this work will have to be let out by contract and will certainly give considerable employment to the various localities where it is to be done. If you follow me quite shortly, the railways on page 6 the object of "a" there in the County of London, is to enable through services from the Moorgate Tube to Finsbury Park and so on. Turn to page 7—the railway in the county of Lincoln. That will enable Grimsby traffic to arrive in Lincoln and its level crossing will be done away with. It will cost £80,000. That will mean substantial employment for the City of Lincoln. The next thing is line 12. The object of this in the county of Lincoln is to get rid of the level crossing, and enable the traffic from the iron works to be dealt with more easily. That will cost £200,000, also, we hope, to be spent in the locality where the work is to be done. Line 25—
a railway in the parish of Rufford by a junction with the company's Rufford Colliery
branch and terminating in the parish of Bilsthorpe.
That equipment will involve an expenditure of £71,000. At line 30 on the same page in the West Riding of the County of York an alteration of the company's Manchester and Sheffield Railway in the parish of Thurgoland, being the conversion of the Thurgoland Tunnel into an open cutting. Purely manual labour. That will cost £200,000. On page 12—the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is not here otherwise I should claim his support—there are
Lands in the urban district of Hessle situate on the north side of and adjoining the company's Hull and Selby railway.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: On a point of Order. I should like to inform the hon. and learned Member that there are four Members for Hull, and although we may not have obtained the same notoriety—

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I offer the hon. Member my deep apology. There is an hon. and gallant Member for Hull whom I had in view, who is so much more in our mind at the moment. The extension and re-arranging of the marshalling yard for the Hull traffic is to cost £100,000. I will not weary the House by going through all the details of the Bill. If it be passed it will involve an expenditure of £2,500,000. This company is being a little unjustly treated. There is great and natural discontent. The services, I have no doubt, can be greatly improved. I admit it. I am not contending that it is not so. I know the discomfort that travellers have to put up with. But do you remember the abnormal conditions: this vast population all wanting to travel at the same time; this old-fashioned line which has to be brought up to date. If you remember that, I suggest it would be a grave mistake to turn down this Bill which, after all, has many good Clauses in it. It would be very unjust to accuse this railway of dishonesty in any form. It made a bargain, a very proper one which obtained the sanction of Parliament. I do not suggest that bargains should never be set aside. I am suggesting that bargains should only be set aside, when they had the sanction of Parliament, for the gravest possible reasons. I suggest that this Bill should be passed
with all the good objects it has in view and the various points which Members have to urge on behalf of their constituents could be thrashed out in Committee.

Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Last Monday night, in consequence of receiving a request from the town council of West Ham, I was authorised to put down a Notice of Motion similar to the one moved by my hon. Friend. It makes it very unpleasant for any Members, either on this side of the House or on the other side, to have to speak against a Bill of this character that is going to provide employment for a very large number of men in the various trades and callings in different parts of the country. I admit that one Clause of the Bill will provide work for some people in West Ham. As other speakers have mentioned, when these Bills are brought before the House of Commons every now and again the only chance we have is to enter our protest against the various railway companies because they are not carrying out their obligations in accordance with the powers they have already received. It will be remembered that last Thursday night, in this House, another railway company presented a Bill for Second Reading, and got it through without any opposition. But I would remind the House that, although they got their Bill through without opposition, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company have had previous Bills before this House, before and since the War, and many of the obligations and powers contained in those Bills have never, up to the present time, been carried out.
There has been a good deal of talk about the North, side of London, and about the electrification of the railways, but not a single word has been said about the East side of London, where, as we are told, all the wise men come from. What I have to complain about is not the powers contained in this Bill, but the powers that are not in the Bill. West Ham has had a deep-rooted grievance against the Great Eastern Railway Company for many years past, and there are five or six members on this side of the House who know that part of the Borough of West Ham where this grievance exists. There has been a level crossing there for 18 years, and the Borough of West Ham
has been urging the Great Eastern Rail-way Company to remove the grievance. One would have thought, in view of that long-standing grievance, that they would have put a Clause into this Bill to do away with this crossing. For a number of years we have had observations made at this crossing. We had one series in 1904, another in 1913, and another in 1922. A number of men were engaged by the council to take observations between the 2nd and the 7th January, 1922, between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. They took observations as to the number of hours during which the gates were closed, and also recorded the number of minutes that the gates were closed at one time; and we found that in some cases the gates were closed for 40 minutes out of 60. A vast amount of vehicular traffic passes over this crossing My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), and my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison), know the White Gates Crossing, Victoria Dock Road, as well as I do, and on one day between the 2nd and the 7th January, 1922, as many as 10,000 vehicles passed over that crossing. That grievance has not been rectified.
We have another grievance against the Great Eastern Railway Company, because they have pinched a certain part of the highway belonging to the borough of West Ham—a case, to use rough phraseology, of highway robbery Yesterday I had a conversation with Mr. Speaker, and asked him whether I should be entitled to read to this House the memorandum that has been presented by our Town Clerk, and he said "Certainly." With the permission of the House, therefore, I will read that memorandum, so that it may be inserted in the OFFICIAL REPORT for future record. It is as follows:—
The White Gates Level Crossing in the Victoria Dock "Road has been for many years a cause of great inconvenience. Every possible step has been taken by the corporation to obtain relief, but without success. The level crossing crosses the highway which affords direct access to the docks, and was described by a Committee of the House of Commons, after inspection some 18 years ago, as being dangerous to life and limb. At the time the crossing was first constructed the road was a private thoroughfare subject to tolls, and the railway, docks and roads were for all practical purposes in the same ownership. Hence, doubtless, no objection was raised by the owners of the road to the
crossing. Subsequently the line became the property of the Great Eastern Railway, now merged in the London and North Eastern Railway. After much litigation the local authority acquired, under special statutory powers, the private interests in the road, freeing such road from tolls."—
I may tell the House that the corporation paid £30,000 for that part of the road—
The site of the road was conveyed to the authority and is their property. During the War, namely, in June, 1918, the railway company approached the corporation, asking for facilities to enable them to carry out certain works at the level crossing, and, as it was understood those works were works of repair, consent was readily given. The Board of Trade informed the corporation that the works were urgent, the War Cabinet having given the necessary priority. The works were commenced one Saturday night and continued over one or two weekends, and it was eventually ascertained from an inspection that an additional line of rails had been laid across the highway on the level, making two lines in all, or four sets of rails. Immediately the Board of Trade were interviewed, and it was explained to them that the council understood only works of repair were to be executed, they having only asked that the railway company should be allowed to have possession of 'the level crossing'; that an encroachment had been made upon the highway; that further lines had been laid down without the slightest notification to the highway authority, and that the private property of the corporation had been utilised. The Board emphasised the extreme urgency and national importance of the matter, as it was apprehended at that moment the Channel ports might have to be closed, and the food supply of London enter the metropolis from the Western ports, and there was only one double line of rails into the docks, the warehouses of which were proposed to be used as the granaries of London. The Board appealed to the corporation on patriotic grounds not to compel them to proceed under D.O.R.A., but to allow the works to continue, and promised that West Ham should not be thereby prejudiced in any way, but on the termination of the War—the actual cessation of hostilities—when the necessity for the lines was removed, they should, if the council desired, be removed and the roadway reinstated to its original position. This was definitely arranged with Colonel Pringle, and subsequently confirmed by an official letter from the Board to the Town Clerk, dated the 24th June, 1918, the last paragraph of which is as follows:
'I am to add that the action now being taken by the railway company at the instance of the Government will not affect the status of the crossing or the legal rights of your council in relation thereto at the end of the War.'
On the faith of these promises and representations the works were allowed to proceed, the corporation rendering all assistance in their power. Immediately on the termination of hostilities, namely, the 11th
November, 1918, the corporation did not ask for the additional lines to be removed, but waited to hear from the Board of Trade; but no communication was received until, in December, 1921, the Disposal and Liquidation Board wrote that the Chief Inspecting Officer of the Ministry of Transport—Colonel Pringle, the gentleman who made the arrangement above mentioned—reported that the utility of certain works was dependent upon the retention of the four lines of rail over the White Gates level crossing, namely, the two original lines and the two lines laid down under War pressure. The Commission added that the Great Eastern Railway Company were prepared to purchase the works constructed at Government expense, provided they had the right to retain the additional lines over the public highway, and asked for an undertaking that the corporation would not in principle oppose an application to Parliament to confirm the construction and user of the additional lines. This undertaking the corporation found themselves unable, in the interest of their district to give, and eventually an appeal was made by the railway company under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1920, to the Minister of Transport, against the corporation's withholding of their assent to the retention of the additional lines of metals. The whole of the facts were carefully laid before the Ministry of Transport, including the promise and representation made by their predecessors, and the corporation submitted that no appeal lay in the matter. This contention was overruled, and Colonel Pringle—the gentleman whose actions were in question—was appointed to hear the appeal. On the 26th July, 1923, the corporation by counsel attended before the inspector. Subsequently the Minister gave a decision consenting to the use of the crossing after the 31st August, 1923, subject to any conditions which he might by Order prescribe. Although this intimation was given in August, 1923, no Order has yet been made." [Interruption.]
I have had permission from Mr. Speaker to road it, and I am going to read it.
The corporation submit that the whole proceedings of the company, and the Ministry of Transport are irregular and ultra vires, that no appeal lay against their refusal to consent to the continued user of the original lines; that there was no power or right in the Ministry to take land belonging to the local authority; that the tribunal chosen was not the proper tribunal, and that the time within which an application could be made had long before expired; and if an opportunity affords, they are quite prepared to test their views in the Courts. This opportunity has, however, been denied to them up to the present. The corporation submit that Parliament would never sanction the construction of a railway level crossing or an additional set of lines across one of the most important highways to the docks, and that the conduct of and attitude adopted by the Ministry (the actions of whose predecessors are in question) is not what is usually associated with a Government Department in appointing the individual who made the
arrangement, and who publicly stated that his mind was a blank, and he had no recollection in the matter, to act as judge practically in his own case." [Interruption.]
This is the most important part. I am coming to a finish.
The corporation understand that the Disposal Board have been paid for their works some £25,000 by the railway company, presumably the actual cost of the work, and in order to obtain this sum the property of the corporation has been illegally taken and the public penalised by having another set of rails laid across the public highway. The corporation consider that no further powers should be conferred upon the London and North Eastern Railway Company until steps are taken by them to remedy the position at the White Gates level crossing.

Mr. BECKER: Will the hon. Member tell me how many lines there are running across the road—three, four or six?

Mr. THORNE: Prior to the War there were two sets of railways. Now there are four.

Sir PAGE CROFT: Would the hon. Member mind reading the quotation again?

Mr. THORNE: If you want to know what I mean by four sets of railways, I mean that two trains can run one way and two the other at the same time. The Corporation of West Ham have for 18 years tried to persuade the Great Eastern Railway Company to remedy this defect. We have not been successful, and this is the only chance we have of entering a most emphatic protest against the highway robbery of the Great Eastern Railway. I ask the Minister of Transport whether he will not have a proper investigation made into the case, so that he will be in a position to restore to the West Ham Corporation the part of the highway that rightly belongs to them. I have the right to ask hon. Members opposite if the Borough of West Ham was in their division, and they were subject to the same conditions, what they would say about it? They would be as much annoyed as I am. The Corporation do not mind these sets of rails remaining where they are, always provided they are going to give us adequate compensation. But after the West Ham Corporation have had to pay £30,000 for this piece of road, I most emphatically protest against the railway company coming along and pinching part of it. I am very pleased you, Sir, gave me the opportunity of reading that
memorandum so that we might have it officially recorded in the Journals of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Before I can see my way to vote for this Measure, there are one or two assurances I should like to have from the promoters. We have heard a great deal about the stranglehold of a monopoly on the City of London. I want to say a few words about another monopoly which has a stranglehold on the City of Hull. Before the Railways Act, 1921, we had two competing railway systems. That Act deprived us of this advantage by combining the competing line under the name and under the management of the London and North Eastern Railway. The point I want to raise is similar to that we have just heard about. It is a question of level crossings. May I explain, roughly, the ground plan of Hull. There are four large main thoroughfares, running north and east from the centre of the city. They are large, wide roads capable of carrying a vast amount of traffic, but, unfortunately, each of these lines of road is intersected by the main line of the London and North Eastern Railway. The corporation say it is necessary, for a good service, that passenger and mail trains should continue to run across these level crossings, and they raise no objection. What they object to is the carriage of mineral and goods traffic upon these level crossings. It is not necessary, because the competing line, the Hull and Barnsley, designed their entrance to the city with more consideration for the rights and the convenience of the inhabitants, and they constructed a high level line, which crosses all the roads by bridges, allowing at all times free traffic underneath, and by a very small re-arrangement of sidings and points this high level line could be used for all the mineral and goods traffic in and out of Hull.
During the Debate on the Railways Bill of 1921 the North Eastern Company practically gave a promise that if they got that Bill through, they would re-arrange the existing railway accommodation so that most of the mineral and goods traffic could use this high level line, leaving the level crossings for the use of passengers and mails. That has not been done. I am told the work is in progress, but I can only say it is in progress at a very slow
rate. At any rate many of these level crossings are closed for something in the nature of 4 hours out of the 24, and it is no uncommon sight to see a line of five or six street cars, and lines of motor and other traffic extending for 250 yards, waiting for the level crossings to be opened. Therefore I must, before I can see my way to vote for this Bill, ask for an assurance from hon. Members who are promoting it that they will press on with all speed that new system of points and lines which will enable the high level line to be used for mineral and goods traffic. There is one further point with which I should like to deal, that is the question of the ferry service between the Corporation Pier at Hull and New Holland. Under the Railways Act, 1921, the London and North Eastern Railway took over the ferry service which formerly had been run by the Great Central Railway Company. I am not complaining of the service, although I do not say that it is good. The traffic is not very large, and the tides in the river make it somewhat uncertain, but there are difficulties in regard to transport of which I do complain. I complain that there are no facilities for taking transport of any kind across the river. Some time ago when the Great Central Railway wanted some alteration made to the Corporation Pier, something in the nature of deepening the water, an arrangement was come to between the corporation and the Great Central Railway that cranes should be provided on each side of the river for lifting motor transport on and off the ferry steamers. The corporation carried out their part of the undertaking, and cranes were provided on one side, but on the other side of the river the Great Central Railway did nothing. They provided no crane, with the result that it is almost impossible for motor transport of any kind to come from New Holland across the ferry to Hull.
That renders useless for motor transport the magnificent main road which lies south through Lincoln and opens up the whole of Lincolnshire, and further south. It is not sufficient for a small crane to be provided; it must be a crane capable of lifting weights up to six or eight tons, so that it will be available not only for small cars, passenger or pleasure cars, but for motor transport and heavy transport,
which is coming more into use. As things stand at the present time, it is with the utmost difficulty that even a small car can be got on board the ferry steamer at New Holland. Once again, I must ask for assurance from hon. Members who are interested in promoting this Bill that something in the nature of providing crane accommodation should be done before I can support the Bill.

Mr. SEXTON: I hold no brief for this railway company or for any other railway company. I sympathise with the hardships of London, from whose representatives the bulk of the protests have come to-night. The bulk of the protests against the powers included in this Bill are centred round London. No doubt, London is a very important place, but may I respectfully say that there are places other than London, which are largely affected by this Bill, and the powers which it seeks? The complaints in regard to London are well grounded, but I would point out that although London may suffer inconveniences, it is not fair to the ports on the North East Coast that they should be butchered to make a Roman holiday for London's convenience. My point is that this Bill, with all its defects, out to be passed. The defects are a matter for Committee rather than for the Second Reading of the Bill.
10.0 P.M.
There are harbours and wharfs along the North East Coast and on the Humber which are much affected. I am speaking as one who has had experience for 25 years of dock works along the estuaries and rivers of this country. There are powers sought to be obtained in this Bill which would affect dock workers, and would prevent the necessity of our men having to work excessive hours, particularly the men who depend entirely upon the ebb and flow of the tide, not in enclosed docks, but open waters. There, the men have to work sometimes an excessive number of hours, particularly in Grimsby and Immingham, where they are told that this or that thing must be done before the tide runs out. That necessitates eight, nine or 10 hours' work, without rest, otherwise they will find that next day there is no work for them.
While sympathising entirely with the position of London, I do say that this Bill will benefit those whom I represent.
The question of London traffic does not depend entirely upon the London and North Eastern Railway. The problem of London traffic has vexed Government after Government; it is puzzling the present Government, and it will puzzle the successor of the present Government when it comes. The traffic of London becomes more congested every year, and it is a general question rather than a local question, the blame for which ought not to be put upon the London and North Eastern Railway Company alone. I am not endeavouring to minimise the grievances of London, but I do say that, as far as I can see, the powers for which this Bill asks are powers which will benefit the men in whom I am interested, and I shall, on my own responsibility, vote for the Second Reading.

Mr. RAINE: I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill, and in doing so I should like to say that I hold no brief for the railway company, that I am not a director or shareholder of the company, and that I have not been asked, directly or indirectly, to support the Bill. I feel, however, that it is my duly to support it. The last speaker gave the true statement of the position when he said that the London and North Eastern Railway Company ought not to be blamed for the position of London traffic. If hon. Members would read the memorandum which has been issued by the railway company, they would see that the company have made a perfectly straightforward case. We have had a very able speech from one hon. Member, in which he explained fully the reason for this particular Clause in connection with the tube railway. I recommend hon. Members to read the memorandum, and if they will do so I am sure that their minds will be disabused of some of the views which they hold.
There is one matter which has not been referred to in the memorandum, and that is the question of a certain bridge in Hebburn. I know Hebburn fairly well, and I consider that that particular bridge requires widening. The trouble is, who is to pay for it? It ought not to be an insuperable difficulty if the people concerned would get together and discuss the matter seriously. In conversation the other day with one of the directors of the London and North Eastern Railway Company I told him, in no uncertain terms, that the bridge ought to be altered.
During the past few years, and particularly since the amalgamation has taken place, the negotiations which I, along with others, have had with the railway companies in the North of England have been of the best and the heartiest. From the constituency which I represent, time and again we have sent deputations when we have required something done, and I do not know whether it has been our eloquence, or the reasonableness of our claim, or a bit of both, but the fact is that we have managed generally to get what we required.
I would recommend that system of negotiation to some of those other people who have been complaining to-night. I do not think they have gone about it in the right way. If they had gone about it in the way we did, it would have been done now. Last year I was a member of a committee that had to deal with railway companies in connection with the shipments of coal on the Tyne. We had very many delicate negotiations with the railway companies. The difficulty we were in was that we were face to face with the problem of having to ship in 16 hours what we had been previously shipping in 24 hours, so that there was tremendous congestion, particularly in the Tyne. The railway company met us in the most reasonable way, and, without our being obliged to come to this House at all, they have opened three new staiths at Dunston. They have also tried three shifts a day, and this great congestion has been done away with. I merely mention that to show what can be done by means of negotiation. I would again urge those who have grievances to meet the general manager or the directors, and I feel sure that they will receive the same treatment in London or elsewhere that we have had in the North of England. I would like to remind the House of a point made previously, namely, that this amalgamated railway company has only been in existence for, 18 months. That is a very short time in the life of a railway company, particularly when you are dealing with great problems like London traffic.

Mr. ATHOLL ROBERTSON: I desire to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. If the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Raine) had been here while the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R Morrison) proposed his Amendment and
made his speech, he would have heard the extent to which we have been trying to negotiate. We have seen both the London and North Eastern Railway Company and the Tube Company, and our experience does not give us the simple faith he has in railway companies. I cannot imagine how he got those things in the North of England, but we cannot do anything approaching that in London. The hon. Member for North Tottenham and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Viscount Ednam) have put the case an commonly well, and I only need to emphasise the point they make. In Finchley there has never been such a combination of people on any question as we have on this at the present moment I happen to live on the North Eastern Railway system myself, and you have to live on it and travel on it daily to appreciate what we are suffering from Here we have a railway company which made a bargain some years ago, which in my opinion ought not to have been legally sanctioned. The London and North Eastern Company appear to adopt a dog-in-the-manger policy. They will not consider the question of a tube beyond Finsbury Park. Up to now we have no reason to believe that the company will consider tubes beyond the Finsbury Park as a means of relieving the congestion. Neither can any Tube Company have permission to make tubes, and the community is left to struggle to work or play by tram or 'bus or train as they like. We are hoping to build a great many more houses in the northern heights of London. The London and North Eastern Railway is not able to handle the present traffic, far from handling any further traffic that may accrue.
Whatever benefits have accrued from amalgamation, we have seen none of them on the northern heights of London. Dirty and overcrowded carriages are the order of the day. This company have failed to grasp the fact that railways are a service to the community for which the community pay in passenger fares and charges on freight. This is quite a simple matter. If this company is really seriously in earnest and disposed to come to the help of the community, there is a great reservoir to be tapped. If this company is in earnest and can give us a guarantee that it will not stand in the way of Tube development, which is a crying necessity,
I do not think this Bill would be opposed. Those of us who are associated in opposition to this Bill do not oppose it lightly. I do not like opposing this Bill. It may be an antiquated way of doing things, but the only way left open to us is to do this and to stand up for our constituencies. It is because of that that we are holding up this Bill to-night. If we get some of these guarantees—and we must have them in black and white so that we can rely upon them; we are not to be fobbed off merely with some kind of promise—but if there are good guarantees given by the company that they will not obstruct any company or authority or any other concern from building tubes, the objection to this Bill would soon pass away. The hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) made a good case for the Bill, but he did not endeavour in any shape or form to answer the objections of the hon. Members for North Tottenham and Hornsey. He only said he was sure the London and North Eastern Railway Company would give fair consideration. What does fair consideration from a railway company mean? It might mean anything or something or nothing. Unless we can get something much more definite and concrete than that, we cannot hone to withdraw our opposition to this Bill. When we hear that the main object of the Bill is to provide a fly-over bridge for suburban traffic, that particular point is a most interesting one. I for one would be glad to see anything to improve suburban traffic, but making these bridges does not promote tubes from Finsbury Park in any way. Great stress was laid on the electrification of the line. The Great Northern manager offered an electrification also, but that is no substitute for the tube which we want. The population of North London is so enormous in this area that we want more tubes, more omnibuses, more trams, more trains and electrification of the Northern Railway. There is no end to what we want. How the people have put up with existing conditions so long I do not know. I happen to be a North Londoner myself, and I was rather interested to hear that the people in the North-East get all that they wish easily out of the railway company, but I have a suspicion that these railway companies and big monopolies generally do anything they
like in London. I happen to be a Member for London, and I intend to stand up for the London people. It is high time that London got a better chance. It certainly deserves a better deal than it gets.
The question of who shall control the traffic will come up some other day. Meantime we must deal with the London and North Eastern Railway Company, and I urge the House to turn this Bill down unless we get a guarantee from the railway company that they will take steps to eliminate that objectionable section which gives a monopoly of the district north of Finsbury Park. If we get a guarantee that that Clause will disappear I am certain that the opposition to the Bill will disappear also. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Raine) has received the railway company's statement. I am surprised that he went so far as he went on this statement because it is far from accurate. I regret exceedingly that the North Eastern Railway Company should have issued such a statement. The company claim to have put in the necessary lifts and conveniences for the exchange of passengers at Finsbury Park. These lifts have not been working for nearly two years. They may be convenient but certainly they do not work. As for the platforms they are much too narrow and very dangerous. Why the railway company should suggest Finsbury Park as a pattern station I do not know.
In the next paragraph the company refer to the promotion of tubes. They say no such consent has been asked for, and it cannot therefore be said that the Section has prevented an extension northwards. The railway company have only to say now that they will give that consent, if asked, to some other company or companies to enable them to carry out an extension of the tube, and if they give that consent the Bill will have an easy passage so far as North London Members are concerned. They claim also that it is only for a period of about an hour in the morning and in the evening that this traffic is heavy. It is for more than two hours in the morning and more than two hours in the evening and on Saturdays with football grounds at Tottenham, and the Alexandra Park races, the railway is a perfect pandemonium, and there is no chance for the ordinary traveller to get home under three or four hours. The
principal works for which powers are sought at present are the widening and re-arrangement of the line between Stratford and Liverpool Street Station, where the density of traffic is greatest. These works would afford a considerable measure of relief, and would be essential in any scheme of electrical work which it may be found possible to adopt.
I am not at all sure that this company is going to electrify these railways. In regard to electrification, I regret exceedingly that there is no company in this country which can do the job. That is a serious matter. Some three companies have to amalgamate to do it. I am not sure that the company is in earnest about this electrification. But electrification is no substitute for tubes from Highgate Archway and Finsbury Park. If the widening from Liverpool Street merely means that more passengers are to be carried more quickly to Finsbury Park, it does not answer our needs. We are in earnest about this, and we expect the railway company to take a much more serious view of the matter, and to do something much more considerable than anything it has done in the past. We are a perfectly united body of all parties, and we have no intention of stopping our objection to this Bill until the company goes forward and does the straight thing by the travelling public.

Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: Before dealing with the larger question, perhaps I might refer to two points which have been raised, the first by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) and the second by the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Lambert Ward). The hon Member for Plaistow gave us a very long extract from a memorandum which has been adopted by the West Ham Council. All hon. Members who listened to that memorandum must have realised at the finish of it that this was, indeed, not a case of a fight between West Ham and the railway company, but a disagreement between West Ham and the Ministry of Transport. There is no doubt that the Ministry of Transport held an inquiry in regard to this particular Clause. The inquiry went against the wishes of the people of West Ham. That fact is not the real reason for blocking this Bill now. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for North-West Hull, I would remind him that when last year
the former London and North Eastern Railway Bill was brought in it was pointed out that certain works were being carried out, and were, in fact, scheduled in the Bill in order to enable the company to avoid a great many of the delays to which reference has been made to-night. I can assure the hon. Member that those works are in course of construction, and will be continued, and that our earnest hope is that the result of the completion of those works will be that much more traffic will be carried by the high level railway in Hull, and that the delays will be reduced. As to the Ferry service, I cannot give him any definite information, but I can assure him that the matter will be most carefully looked into, and, if anything can be done, the railway company will be only too glad to do it.
With regard to the attack on the company by the Members for North London—it is an attack—I hope that the House as a whole realises that this attack, made, as it is, by the Members for North London, does not, in fact, touch any of the provisions of the Bill. It is an attack to stop the Bill—a Bill which has been shown by other speakers and more especially by the hon. Member for Bassettlaw (Sir W. E. Hume-Williams) to be a Bill which is required to enable the company to carry out very useful works in this country. It is entirely wrong for North London Members to suggest that because they cannot get everything exactly at the moment they require it—[Laughter]—perhaps hon. Members will allow me to develop my argument—that therefore these other works which are acknowledged to be useful, and indeed essential in different parts of the country, are not to be carried out.
There was considerable laughter when I suggested that the hon. Members for North London could not get what they wanted immediately. The hon. and learned Member of the Bassetlaw Division pointed out very truly that the company has not been idle since this question was raised 12 months ago. We were then—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who are 'we'?"]—I beg hon. Members pardon. The railway company was then, as I pointed out at the time, only a few months old, and recognising the difficulties which existed in the North London area, it was stated that electrification proposals would be examined with a view to seeing whether
some of the complaints could not be met. No time has been wasted. The railway company has been continuing its researches; it has taken an enormous amount of pains and time in trying to arrive at a conclusion, but owing to circumstances which the hon. and learned Member has already pointed out, it had not been able to come to a definite conclusion prior to the time when this Bill had to come before the House of Commons. This is a question of the expenditure of something like £5,000,000, and I cannot agree that hon. Members for North London have any cause for complaint because we refused to hurry the matter unduly, and because we insisted on having time. [HON. MEMBERS: "We!"] I apologise for using the word "we," but it is only natural. The point which is troubling the North London Members is, firstly, that the company is not going fast enough in regard to electrification.

Viscount EDNAM: That is not our point. Our point is that we want the removal of this objectionable Section. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not try to sidetrack hon. Members from the main issue. The whole intention of our argument is the removal of the Section.

Mr. WILSON: The Noble Lord took me up rather too quickly. I used the word "firstly," and I was dealing, firstly, with the question of electrification. As the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw Division pointed out we hope to electrify the line [HON. MEMBERS: "We?"] It may simplify matters if I say that I happen to be a director of the company, and I think I am entitled to use the word "we." When a railway company wishes to undertake any work of this magnitude, they have to consider whether or not it is a commercial proposition. Under the Railway Act passed by this House in 1921, a railway company is bound to see that this is a commercial proposition before it adopts it or before, in the alternative, it puts upon the traders of this country the necessity of finding the standard revenue, and that is a point which this House should realise before pressing on a railway company a work of this magnitude without due consideration. As regards the question of the tubes raised by the Noble Lord, the hon. and learned Member
for Bassetlaw pointed out, very truly, that there is nothing at all to prevent people, with the one exception of the Metropolitan Railway, building as many tubes as they like, in any direction, and at any moment. They could start those tubes to-morrow, and if they themselves, on their part, could show that it was a commercial proposition, I have no doubt they would find no difficulty at all in obtaining the necessary money.

Mr. A. ROBERTSON: Will you give a guarantee that you will not obstruct?

Mr. WILSON: I cannot give a guarantee of that kind. The hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw has pointed out that, with the one exception of the Metropolitan Railway Company, which made an agreement—to which there were two sides, as he also truly pointed out—any company can start and build those tubes, and if it were a paying proposition I am certain the House of Commons, or the Committee upstairs, would give a Bill authorising the work most favourable consideration. There is the position, and I do not think there is anything further which I can add. The company does not want to assume a dog-in-the-manger policy. The company has shown, during the last 12 months, that it is anxious in every way to meet the demands of the inhabitants of North London. The company has not wasted time, but has made very considerable progress, and I do not think the company is asking for too much when it asks for another month or two in which to complete its investigations in regard to electricity, intending and hoping, as it does, that it will find that it will be a commercial proposition, in which case it will proceed with the work.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I should like first to deal with the question of the White Gates level crossing. This complaint really lies more against the Ministry of Transport than the railway company. In August last, after a formal inquiry was held, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport authorised two additional lines of railway, which had been laid down during the War, over the White Gates crossing in Victoria Docks Road to be continued in use. The officer holding the inquiry reported that no danger had been caused by the use of the additional lines, and that incon-
venience for road traffic, caused by the shutting of the gates, would be diminished by their use. I am well aware of the traffic difficulties in and near the docks. Indeed, I received an important deputation from the Chamber of Commerce to-day on this very subject. When a London Traffic Bill is got through, I hope we shall be able to deal with the problem of traffic to and from the docks, but I do not think this question is one that can be said, in any sense, to be the fault of the railway company.
The most serious complaints brought against the administration of the rail way company promoting this Bill are in connection with the facilities offered by its London suburban services, both in the district of the old Great Northern Rail way and in the district of the old Great Eastern Railway, and I certainly feel that, in spite of all the other claims on their attention, the directors have given a great deal of thought to this problem. As regards the Great Eastern district, the position now is that the existing lines are utilised practically to their full extent, and that no alleviation of the position can, with the lines as they are, be obtained by the substitution of electricity for steam as the motive power. The present Bill seeks to obtain power to make widenings of this line, which would be a necessary preliminary to any improvement of the service, and the company have already statutory power to electrify this part of their system. They are, in fact, as far as this section of the line is concerned, doing what they can to remedy the present state of affairs.
I want to get the House back, if it will, to the whole Bill, and not only that part of the Bill which affects London. If it were a Bill only dealing with London, I do not think I should have very readily got up to say anything under all the circumstances, but when one remembers that the Bill is loaded with work of all kinds that would be delayed, speaking for the Ministry that I am representing for the moment, we are a little anxious that this Bill should not miss the Second Reading. The only other word that I would like to say is with regard to pressing the promoters for a rather better promise than was given by the hon. Member who first spoke. The feeling, it seems to me, on this side is that it is rather a dog-in-the manger policy. If some assurance could
be given that the company will either do it or leave it to somebody else to do, I. think we could hope that the Bill would get the Second Reading and go upstairs, where the remainder of the difficulties could be fought out.

Mr. M. WILSON: By the leave of the House, may I be allowed to say one word in reply to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman? As I said before, I do not think the company want to appear in a dog-in-the-manger position, and they would like to meet the criticism as far as possible. Speaking on behalf of the railway company, I would like to say that if the Bill receives its Second Reading, and the instruction is not pressed, the company are prepared to undertake that they will proceed with all due expedition to a decision upon the proposal, which they have under consideration, to electrically equip the Great Northern section of the suburban line to Finsbury Park and northwards of Finsbury Park, and if they come to the conclusion that they are unable to proceed to carry into effect such electrification referred to, or they fail, when the time arrives in October next for the introduction of private Bills in the next Session of Parliament, to come to a final decision, then they will waive any provision, statutory or otherwise, under which their consent is necessary for the construction of a railway northwards of Finsbury Park by any other company, body or persons.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Has the hon. Gentleman nothing more to say about the condition of Hebburn?

Mr. ROBERT WILSON: I think it must be obvious to the House that at this late hour it will be impossible to move the Motion standing in my name, and the names of other Members of the county of Durham, in reference to the matter of bridges and stations. In reply to an interruption made by an hon. Member below the Gangway, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Raine) said that he thought that people who did not succeed with the London and North-Eastern Railway Company did not go the right way about it, and I should like to ask the hon. Member whether the negotiations which have been proceeding for many years in relation to Sunderland Station I have succeeded. I should like to ask
whether the railway company has a method of selecting larger companies and larger measures to the disadvantage of smaller communities?
I shall, therefore, claim the indulgence of the House in referring to a very important matter, that is the bridge of Hebburn-on-Tyne. This bridge was built in 1871. Since then nothing has been done to it except the ordinary repairs. In 1871 the population of Hebburn was 5,000. To-day it is 25,000. Hebburn itself lies on the River Tyne and is a great industrial centre. It is not dependent alone upon the shipbuilding, though I should say fully a half of the population are engaged in that industry, but there are other industries; and the whole of these employ over 10,000 workmen. These come from all parts of the district. This bridge measures only 25 feet 10 inches, and it is there because otherwise there would be a level crossing needed. The road on the south side of the bridge is 50 feet wide, and on the north side 54 feet. One can imagine what takes place during the early hours of the morning, at noon, and at the works' closing time, when you have a great rush of workpeople across the bridge. I am told that it is positively dangerous to both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. These large industries too, mean, of course, a paying proposition to the railway company in the way of merchandise carried. As I say, for a period of 50 years nothing has been done to widen the bridge. We have heard to-night that in connection with the Bill now before us, that certain items have not been included. I would like to state to the House that for years negotiations have been taking place without any result. Within very recent times efforts have been made to move the railway company, but still they have not done anything. They have had any amount of opportunities of adopting measures to deal with certain sections of this kind. I want to say a word or two about this station. The poet Keats wrote:
A thing of beauty is a joy for ever,
but the station at Hebburn is ugly to-day and uglier to-morrow. It was built without any regard to architectural beauty, and there is neither shape nor comeliness about it. Besides this, there is no decent accommodation for the people using the
station. I want to assert here that the bridge at Hebburn, as well as the station, are a disgrace to the London and North Eastern Railway Company. I feel very strongly against the company for not meeting the desires of the Urban District Council of Hebburn in a better way than they have done in the past.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: In rising to oppose this Amendment, and to support the Bill, I sympathise very much with the promoters of this Measure. I do not think it is quite fair that such trenchant criticism should be launched against the new group of railways managed by the North Eastern Railway Company with regard to the carrying out of so many works over their whole system, extending for many hndreds of miles, and which are very necessary. In reading the provisions of this Bill I take it that they are all good, and so far as I am concerned in my own particular corner of the country, there are only two Clauses to which I take exception, and they are Clauses 39 and 40.
In the former Clause the Company seek powers to make an extension of the line and for the carrying out and purchase of certain property of which they have had the option ever since the year 1910. What is felt on the Humber is that after a lapse of 14 years the company certainly have had time enough to make up its mind as to whether it is going to absorb those properties. In Clause 30 the Company seek an extension of powers for the construction of certain works. In my constituency in 1912 the old company obtained an Act of Parliament for the construction of a new fish dock at Grimsby, and the contract was let for about £250,000 in 1914 before the World War broke out. Although this great corporation has been approached repeatedly to endeavour to get them to carry out Parliamentary powers for the construction of this dock, so far the corporation has not succeeded in getting a move on at all. The construction of this dock in Grimsby at the present time is not only a matter of urgent local necessity, but I claim that it is one of great national necessity. Grimsby is the largest fishing port in the world, and the development of the fishing industry at the present time is grievously hampered by reason of the congestion and the inconvenience under which the whole
of that community is, I will not say called upon to work, but simply to struggle for an existence. If, therefore, we can get an assurance from the London and North Eastern Railway Company that this dock will be gone on with at the earliest possible moment, I should have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Bill in its entirety.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The undertakings which have been given, so far as the tube extension is concerned in relation to the electrification of the Great Northern suburban line, seem to me to be irrelevant to the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison). The Great Northern suburban lines, whether electrified or not, cannot replace the facilities for transport which are demanded by the Members representing London constituencies. The Great Northern Railway comes into King's Cross. That is of no use to the people who would come into the City of London on the Metropolitan line, or the people who would go into West Central or West London on the Piccadilly Railway. Therefore, it is an irrelevant consideration. All that has been offered is that, if the company undertakes to proceed with the electrification of its own suburban lines, there would then be no obligation on the company to waive its legal position, so far as the extension of the tube beyond Finsbury Park. That undertaking cannot in any way give satisfaction to the opposition to this Bill on this particular point. I am interested in the matter, not so much as other Members, but the people of Hackney have an interest in the matter in view of the communications they have with Finsbury Park. Another point I wish to raise is the scandalous state of the rolling stock provided for working-class passengers. I have travelled on the suburban lines of this railway a good deal. I venture to say that its third-class carriages are a disgrace to civilisation. I will not say that they are a disgrace to the Great Eastern Railway Company, because it is not possible for anything to be a disgrace to that company, but the condition of the third-class railway rolling stock on that line is a true indication of what the hon. Member who has the impudence to get up in this
House and say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a phrase allowed in the House of Commons.

Mr. MORRISON: I beg your pardon, Sir, I withdraw. The hon. Member, who states that he represents the railway company—which seems to me to be a highly improper thing for a Member to suggest in this House; I should have thought he would have represented a constituency—It does show what he and his fellow directors think of the working classes when they provide rolling stock of that character.

Captain TERRELL: On a point of Order. May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the state of third-class railway carriages has anything to do whatsoever with this Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: On the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind, it is customary to allow discussion on the manner in which the powers of the company have been used.

Mr. MORRISON: If the hon. and gallant Member objects to the discussion of the third-class carriages, I will have a word to say about the second. The third-class carriages are an indication of what the hon. Gentleman and other directors of the company think of the working classes. The condition of the second-class carriages is some indication of what the directors think of the middle classes; I assure the House that the second-class carriages are very little better than the third. They are dirty, the seats are exceedingly narrow, and they are really vehicles in which one would not travel if one were not compelled. They deliver the working classes and the middle classes of London to their places of employment, not in that state of pleasure and brightness in which working people ought to go to work, but in such a state of depression, sadness and misery that they cannot properly discharge their duties.
I have another grievance. I used to travel from Clapton to Liverpool Street on this company's line, and half that journey is through tunnels. They give you no light—and I understand that you get no light in whatever class you may be, so that even the aristrocracy get it in the neck. I have the good habit, or at least I had,
when I took that journey, of carefully reading my "Daily Herald" in the newspaper train, and as soon as we got out of Clapton station we went under a bridge, and down went the paper in the darkness. We got to the light, there was then another bridge, and down went the paper again. We got to the light, then to a third bridge, and then we got to a place where the railway train, appropriately enough, goes under a lunatic asylum, and for quite a long time we were in darkness. Then there was light for a little while, even on the Great Eastern Railway, and then we got to Bethnal Green, which is beginning to see the light, for it has one Labour Member in this House. Then, between there and Liverpool Street, we were in darkness again, and, as often as not, the train stopped dead in the middle of the darkness and you could not see

anything. There are quite a number of Socialists about in these days, and one does not know what may happen to one's pockets in such circumstances. I submit that in addition to the point which has been raised by hon. Members representing constituencies in the North of London, on the point of the really scandalous and disgraceful state of the rolling stock—it is not a disgrace to private enterprise; it is what we expect from private, railway enterprise—

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Robert Young): rose in his place and claimed to move,
"That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 149.

Division No. 15.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Foot, Isaac
McCrae, Sir George


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Franklin, L. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacDonald, R.


Ammon, Charles George
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macfadyen, E.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gosling, Harry
Mackinder, W.


Bailour, George (Hampstead)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
McLean, Major A.


Barclay, R. Noton
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Gretton, Colonel John
Mansel, Sir Courtenay


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Grundy, T. W.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.


Birk[...]tt, W. N.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Black, J. W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morse, W. E.


Bonwick, A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moulton, Major Fletcher


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harbison, Thomas James S.
Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Harland, A.
Murrell, Frank


Bullock, Captain M.
Hartington, Marquess of
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Burman, J. B.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Owen, Major G.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hillary, A. E.
Perring, William George


Chapman, Sir S.
Hindle, F.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Clayton, G. C.
Hirst, G. H.
Raffety, F. W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hobhouse, A. L.
Raine, W.


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Rankin, James S.


Compton, Joseph
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rathbone, Hugh R.


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Cope, Major William
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Rea, W. Russell


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Page
Huntingfield, Lord
Rendall, A.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Rentoul, G. S.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jephcott, A. R.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Deans, Richard Storry
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Dixey, A. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ropner, Major L.


Dodds, S. R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Duckworth, John
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Royce, William Stapleton


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.


Duncan, C.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Keens, T.
Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Elveden, Viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Savery, S. S.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lane-Fox, George R.
Sexton, James


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Leach, W.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Lee, F.
Sherwood, George Henry


Ferguson, H.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Lumley, L. R.
Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)


Simpson, J. Hope
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Sitch, Charles H.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith-Carrington, Neville W.
Thornton, Maxwell R.
Willison, H.


Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furness)
Tillett, Benjamin
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Starmer, Sir Charles
Tout, W. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wise, Sir Frederic


Stranger, Innes Harold
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)
Wragg, Herbert


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sutcliffe, T.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)



Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Weir, L. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tattersall, J. L.
Weston, John Wakefield
Sir Ellis Hume-Williams and Mr.




Murrough Wilson.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Haycock, A. W.
Purcell, A. A.


Alden, Percy
Hayday, Arthur
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Raynes, W. R.


Alstead, R.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Remer, J. R.


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ayles, W. H.
Hodges, Frank
Ritson, J.


Birkett, W. N.
Hoffman, P. C.
Robertson, T. A.


Banton, G.
Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northrn.)
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Isaacs, G. A.
Scurr, John


Becker, Harry
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Jewson, Dorothea
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Snell, Harry


Buckie, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spence, R.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. J. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Cassels, J. D.
Kedward, R. M.
Stamford, T. W.


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, J.


Church, Major A. G.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Clarke, A.
Laverack, F. J.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Climie, R.
Law, A.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, E.


Crittall, V. G.
Linfield, F. C.
Tinker, John Joseph


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Livingstone, A. M.
Turner, Ben


Darbishire, C. W.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Loverseed, J. F.
Varley, Frank B.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Dickson, T.
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dukes, C.
M'Entee, V. L.
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Warne, G. H.


Finney, V. H.
Maden, H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunlermline)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
March, S.
Watts Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Middleton, G.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Mills, J. E.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mantague, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenall, T.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Palmer, E. T.
Wright, W.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Hardie, George D.
Perry, S. F.



Harney, E. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Robert Morrison and Viscount


Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Pringle, W. M. R.
Ednam.

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 142.

Division No. 16.]
AYES.
[11.10 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Beckett, Sir Gervase
Briscoe, Captain Richard George


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bullock, Captain M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Burman, J. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Betterton, Henry B.
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Birkett, W. N.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Black, J. W.
Caine, Gordon Hall


Barclay, R. Noton
Bonwick, A.
Cape, Thomas


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
[...]kinson, A. (Lancaster, Mosslay)
Ropner, Major L.


Chapman, Sir S.
[...]rd, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Clayton, G. C.
[...]gfield, Lord
Royce, William Stapleton


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
[...]n, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jephcott, A. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cope, Major William
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Costello, L. W. J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Savery, S. S.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Sexton, James


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Page
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Sherwood, George Henry


Darbishire, C. W.
Keens, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Simpson, J. Hope


Deans, Richard Storry
Lamb, J. Q.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Lane-Fox, George R.
Sitch, Charles H.


Dixey, A. C.
Lawson, John James
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Dodds, S. R.
Leach, W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Duckworth, John
Lee, F.
Smith-Carrington, Neville W.


Duncan, C.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Starmer, Sir Charles


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Lunn, William
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
McCrae, Sir George
Stranger, Innes Harold


Elvedon, Viscount
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Macfadyen, E.
Sullivan, J.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
McLean, Major A.
Sutcliffe, T.


Ferguson, H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tattersall, J. L.


Foot, Isaac
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Franklin, L. B.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro[...].)


Gosling, Harry
Morse, W. E.
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Tillett, Benjamin


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)
Tout, W. J.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Murrell, Frank
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Gretton, Colonel John
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Owen, Major G.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.
Weir, L. M.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Weston, John Wakefield


Harbison, Thomas James S.
Perring, William George
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Harland, A.
Ponsonby, Arthur
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Hartington, Marquess of
Raffety, F. W.
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Raine, W.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Rankin, James S.
Willison, H.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rathbone, Hugh R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Wise, Sir Frederic


Hillary, A. E.
Rea, W. Russell
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hindle, F.
Rendall, A.
Wragg, Herbert


Hobhouse, A. L.
Rentoul, G. S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.



Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Sir Ellis Hume-Williams and Mr.




Murrough Wilson.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Climie, R.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Alden, Percy
Cluse, W. S.
Groves, T.


Alstead, R.
Cove, W. G.
Grundy, T. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Crittall, V. G.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Ayles, W. H.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hardie, George D.


Baker, W. J.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Harney, E. A.


Banton, G.
Dickson, T.
Harris, John (Hackney, North)


Barnes, A.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)


Batey, Joseph
Dukes, C.
Haycock, A. W.


Becker, Harry
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hayday, Arthur


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Finney, V. H.
Hayes, John Henry


Broad, F. A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Hirst, G. H.


Buckle, J.
Gillett, George M.
Hodges, Frank


Cassels, J. D.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Hoffman, P. C.


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Hudson, J. H.


Charleton, H. C.
Greenall, T.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)


Church, Major A. G.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Clarke, A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jewson, Dorothea




John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oliver, George Harold
Thurtle, E.


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Palmer, E. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Turner, Ben


Kedward, R. M.
Perry, S. F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Kennedy, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Kirkwood, D.
Potts, John S.
Viant, S. P.


Lansbury, George
Pringle, W. M. R.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Laverack, F. J.
Purcell, A. A.
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Law, A.
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Warne, G. H.


Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Raynes, W. R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Linfield, F. C.
Remer, J. R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Livingstone, A. M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Welsh, J. C.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Ritson, J.
Westwood, J.


Loverseed, J. F.
Robertson, T. A.
Whiteley, W.


Lowth, T.
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


M'Entee, V. L.,
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Mackinder, W.
Scurr, John
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kenningtn.)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)


Maden, H.
Smillie, Robert
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


March, S.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Snell, Harry
Windsor, Walter


Maxton, James
Spence, R.
Wright, W.


Middleton, G.
Spero, Dr. G. E.
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Mills, J. E.
Stamford, T. W.



Mantague, Frederick
Stephen, Campbell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sutton, J. E.
Viscount Ednam and Mr. Robert


Naylor, T. E.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Morrison.


O'Grady, Captain James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Adlington, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 12th day of February, 1924, be approved."—[Mr. Gosling.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADMIRALTY (PRESS INTERVIEW).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]

Mr. PRINGLE: At the close of Question Time to-day, I gave notice that I would call the attention of the House to an interesting interview which took place between a member of the War Staff of the Admiralty and a body of journalists on the 3rd March. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) desired to ask a private notice question on this matter at the close of Question Time. As the matter was not regarded as urgent, the question could not be put. In order to show exactly what has arisen, I desire
to read the question which he intended to put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty:
Whether he is aware that on 3rd March Captain Norris, of the Trade Division of the War Staff, delivered an address to journalists at the Admiralty on certain aspects of naval warfare; if so, what was the object of this proceeding, and why the information it was desired to convey was not laid before Parliament in a White Paper?
This meeting is, I understand, unique of its kind.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is it in order for the hon. Member to mention the name of an officer at the Admiralty in this connection?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, I think so. He is entitled to do that. There is no criticism of the officer.

Mr. PRINGLE: I have expressed no views as to the action of this officer, and I assume that in what he did he was not acting upon his own responsibility, but on instructions from the political officers of the Department, who are responsible to this House for what was done. This meeting, I understand, was a revival of a system with which we were familiar during the War—a system of propaganda. We have only in very vague terms an indication of what was said at this interview, but undoubtedly the Press were instructed regarding—as it is put here—"certain aspects of naval warfare," particularly in relation to the trade routes as far as the future was concerned. Special reference was made to the im-
portance of the Pacific Ocean, to the impending clash between Asiatic and Western civilisation, and to the fact that Singapore was the gateway of the Pacific, and I am informed that the whole tendency of this interview was to impress upon the journalists present the importance of the Singapore base. That is borne out by an article which appeared in the "Times," obviously, with the same inspiration and having the same object, the authorship of which is attributed to an even higher source. The "Times" as usual, of course, has precedence of other newspapers, and the publication of the article in the "Times" came a day before the matter was released for the rest of the Press. But the important matter is this: Are the views expressed in this interview, as they have so far been communicated in the Press, the views of His Majesty's Government, or are they only the views of the Admiralty? Up to the present time there has been no declaration of Government policy. Varying statements have been made in different organs of opinion as to the views of the Government and the differences between different Members of the Cabinet on this matter. But we know that no decision has been taken, and obviously it is a most unusual thing that the representative of a Department should be advocating a policy to journalists in respect of which the Government itself has not come to a decision. There are two alternative explanations. Although the Government may not have taken its decision, the Admiralty may, nevertheless, have had instructions to give this information to the Press, and to present these views to journalists as a means of preparing the way for a Government decision. The Government may regard it as necessary that the ground should be prepared and that the public should be made aware of the arguments in favour of this proposal. In that case, the Admiralty, without official sanction, would be acting as pioneers for the Government.
There is an alternative explanation. The Government may not intend to change their views on this matter. They may intend to adhere to the views expressed by the Prime Minister when in Opposition, that the Singapore base
is a colossal folly. In that case the Admiralty would be in the position of mutineers—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We would give them the cat.

Mr. PRINGLE: I have no doubt what the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) would do. He is made of sterner stuff than the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. What is a First Lord to him, or a Sea Lord to him?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Or a Pringle?

Mr. PRINGLE: I agree. The question for the Parliamentary Secretary is this: Was this officer authorised to put forward this propaganda in favour of the Singapore base? Does it represent the policy of the Government, and, if not, has this been done by the official heads of the Admiralty, without consultation with the Cabinet?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): In the moment or two which have been left to me to reply, I should not like to say designedly, by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), I want to say that once again he has given an instance that he is the greatest discoverer of mare's nests—

Mr. PRINGLE: It is in the "Daily Herald" to-day.

Mr. AMMON: I imagine that the hon. Member is greatly deceived if he thinks that he is going to deceive the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) by the reference he made to him just now. When he says, "I am informed," one usually begins to appreciate that his information is not very well based, as in this particular case. Let me briefly say that the whole case put forward by the hon. Member is not exactly as appears on the surface, but simply a desire to fish for something else, at which we are not going to rise so easily as he imagines. Is it not a fact that Captain Norris, of the Trade Division of the War Staff, delivered an address on certain aspects of naval warfare. Certain newspapers, knowing of the existence of the Admiralty trade routes and commodity charts, requested permission to publish them with explanations. These charts are not secret, and could not be refused; but it was thought inadvisable and unfair to the other papers not to allow
them all to have the information. Consequently the editors of the newspapers were invited to send representatives to the Admiralty, and a Press Conference was held at the Admiralty on Tuesday morning. The facts that were given to them were the summaries of the returns published in the Trade and Navigation Return, Lloyd's, and other official documents, and are intended to show in precise form the volume of ocean-going trade, for the benefit of the general public.
I need only say that the Admiralty are not responsible for the statements which have appeared in the Press. They are
absolutely unauthorised by the Board of Admiralty. We cannot be concerned with what view the Press takes, and nobody knows that better than the hon. Member. In view of the whole question of Singapore being under consideration by the Cabinet, it is eminently desirable, in the public interest, that no information be given which could be misconstrued as in the present case. Information desired by the Press will in future be issued to them subject to this consideration.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.